Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Rent Bill

Sir L. Plummer: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a humble Petition against the Rent Bill from several hundred people in my constituency of Deptford, to be exact, 2,000, which co-incidentally is exactly the number of families who will lose their protection against their rents being raised. These citizens of a hard working and important borough resent the Bill, which not only takes away their security, but is designed to lower their standard of living by extracting from their quite undue rewards to landlords.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Accidents (Insurance)

Mr. F. Allaun: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to recent cases in which insurance companies have denied liability to firms insured by them because of a clause in the insurance policy providing that the insured must take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents, and in which the firm might have insufficient funds to meet the claim even after liquidation; and if he will consider introducing legislation to make compulsory insurance against the employers' liability at common law.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Insurance (Mr. Robert Carr): I have looked at the facts in the case which the hon. Member has brought to my notice. 
The employer concerned is insured, and the question of compulsory insurance against employers' liability at common law would not seem to arise in this case. I understand that no judgment concerning damages to the injured person concerned has been given. The general question of compulsory insurance has been examined in the past, but legislation to require it is not considered appropriate.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in this case a young Manchester woman was scalped by her lathe, involving damages estimated at £7,000; but, because the employers had failed to guard the machine, the insurance company disclaimed liability; and because the engineering firm is so small, it could not pay her the damages, even if it went into liquidation? If a man knocks down a woman with his car in the street, the insurance company is liable to that woman, even if the driver had falsely purported to the insurance company, for example, to have a clean driving record. Could not the law be made parallel in these cases?

Mr. Carr: There is no evidence that if there were a judgment in this girl's favour damages awarded would not be paid. It would be improper for me to comment further on the merits of the case as, for all I know, further events may be impending. On the general question of legislation, this was gone into as a result of a deputation from the T.U.C. as lately as 1955. The T.U.C. was asked to submit evidence and was informed at the time that, although it was clear that hard cases could arise, we did not feel that the number justified the complexed legislation involved, which would, moreover, be difficult to enforce. My right hon. Friend would be open to consider further evidence at any time, but it has been carefully considered only recently.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that, in the circumstances which my hon. Friend mentioned in his supplementary question a most appalling injustice might occur, and that the sort of answer which the hon. Gentleman has given is exactly the kind of answer that is always given for stalling on this kind of question? Will he not consider dealing with cases of


injustice which could easily arise because great hardship can conceivably often arise in these cases?

Mr. Carr: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we do not lack sympathy for these hard cases when they arise. This is a difficult matter. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that there is a saying about hard cases sometimes making bad law. We have considered this very carefully in the past, and we will keep a close eye on it, but legislation was thought to be extremely complex and difficult to enforce and, in view of the little evidence forthcoming as to its need, it was thought not right to embark on it.

International Labour Organisation (Cyprus)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Minister of Labour what reply he has given to the recommendation made to Her Majesty's Government by the Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation that all persons in custody in Cyprus, including trade union leaders, should receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): The reply to be made to the Governing Body's observations on this matter is under consideration.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the representative character of the I.L.O., representing Governments and employers' organisations, as well as workers' organisations, will the right hon. Gentleman refer this request to the Secretary of State for the Colonies with a view to the trial of more than 1,000 people who are still detained in Cyprus and to facilitate negotiations with Archbishop Makarios and the representatives of the Cypriot people?

Mr. Macleod: I think that that goes a good deal wider. I will, of course, discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the majority of allegations made were rejected by the Governing Body. I should make it quite clear that if people were detained in Cyprus, that was never because of their trade union activities.

Industrial Disputes Order

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Labour when he hopes to make a statement on the amendment of the Industrial Disputes Order.

Mr. Iain Macleod: There is nothing I can at present usefully add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 19th March.

Dame Irene Ward: Can my hon. Friend say how long he thinks it will be before he will be able to make a statement on this very important matter?

Mr. Macleod: The British Employers' Confederation and the T.U.C. are considering what I put to them, and I expect their views probably in May or June of this year. If my hon. Friend would like me to, I will let her know as soon as I am ready to make another statement.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the amendment of this Order excites interest over a very wide range of interests in the country?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, I know that, and I know the cases the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Coventry

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give, industry by industry, the total number of persons unemployed in Coventry at the latest available date as compared with the beginning of the year.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend indicate whether the employment position has substantially improved in Coventry in the last few months?

Mr. Macleod: That is one of the complications. As far as figures are concerned, there has been a complete deterioration, but that, as I explain in a sub-note to the table, is purely because there has been a change in the guaranteed week agreement. I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to study the Answer in detail in HANSARD.

Following is the table:


Numbers of persons registered as unemployed at Coventry Employment Exchange and Youth Employment Office at 14th January, and 11th March, 1957.


Industry
14th January, 1957
11th March, 1957


Males
Females
Total
Males
Females
Total


Non-Electrical Engineering
137
37
174
133
49
182


Telegraph and Telephone Apparatus
31
35
66
8
41
49


Wireless Apparatus (except valves) and Gramophones
14
29
43
37
81
118


Manufacture of Motor Vehicles and Cycles
1,130
72
1,202
3,511
168
3,679


Manufacture and Repair of Aircraft
58
10
68
135
20
155


Manufacture of Parts and Accessories for Motor Vehicles and Aircraft
89
35
124
97
92
189


Metal Goods Manufacture
54
20
74
94
20
114


Building and Civil Engineering Contracting
263
4
267
177
3
180


Postal, Telegraph and Wireless Communication
14
18
32
30
14
44


Distributive Trades
78
104
182
74
91
165


Professional Services
7
23
30
7
41
48


Catering, Hostels, etc.
25
105
130
18
142
160


All other Industries and Services
406
268
674
512
344
856


Total, all Industries and Services
2,306
760
3,066
4,833
1,106
5,939


The total of those unemployed on 11th March included 2,994 temporarily stopped, compared with 133 on 14th January. This increase was due to a recent change in the guaranteed week provisions of the agreement between the two sides of the engineering industry.

Women's Consultative Committee (Festival of Women)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that most of the women serving on the Women's Consultative Committee appointed to advise him are actively supporting the Festival of Women; and why he has not consulted this Committee on this matter.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The terms of reference of the Women's Consultative Committee are to advise me on questions of employment policy referring to women. I do not think that the question of employment policy was involved in this issue.

Dame Irene Ward: As a founder member of the original Committee, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the fact that he takes a different view from his predecessors and that, unlike his predecessors, he has not come to see the Committee and discuss things with them, fills me with regret, particularly as quite a number of Government Departments are supporting the Festival of Women? Would it not have been polite of him to come to see us on this matter?

Mr. Macleod: I am always prepared to accept a rebuke. I am coming, I hope, to the next meeting of the Women's Consultative Committee. As a matter of fact, I do not think that this is a matter within the terms of reference which I have indicated, but I have had a further approach from the Festival of Women, which has put a particular proposal to me which I am considering.

Dame Irene Ward: May I thank my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what other representative women's organisations he consulted on this matter?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. The original Question was whether Government money should be expended on this. That is a matter for Government decision, and it is not one on which one can consult and take advice from outside opinion.

Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Company Limited

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the terms of reference of the Inter-Departmental Committee which he has set up to


consider the decision of the House of Lords in Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Company Limited.

Mr. Carr: The Committee's terms of reference are:
To study the implications of the judgments in the case of Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Company Limited as they might affect the relations between employers and workers.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I understand from that Answer that the inquiry will not be confined to motoring cases only. Can the hon. Gentleman say specifically whether it is the intention, as the wording of the terms of reference seem to imply, that the Inter-Departmental Committee should also inquire into cases where employers have, in fact, insured against what their employees do or do not do and cases where employers should reasonably have insured against what their employees do or do not do? The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that these are points which were very much considered in the dissenting speeches in the House of Lords.

Mr. Carr: The terms of reference are drawn widely for employers and workers relationship. I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I think he can take it that the terms of reference go far beyond driving cases.

Middlesex

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the merger between Electrical and Musical Industries and other radio companies, which is likely to cause serious unemployment in the Feltham area of Middlesex; and what action he proposes to take to provide alternataive employment for those affected.

Mr. Pargiter: asked the Minister of Labour what step he proposes to take in connection with the redundancy which will arise from amalgamation in the radio industry in Middlesex and to find alternative employment for those affected.

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the threat to employment in Hayes and Harlington; what steps he proposes to take to find alternative employment for those affected.

Mr. lain Macleod: I understand that although no redundancy has been

declared the firm in question may have to discharge between 2,600 and 3,000 workers in the next few months. All those concerned will be invited to register with my Department for other employment as soon as it is known which workers are to be discharged, and everything possible will be done to submit them to vacancies.

Mr. Hunter: I should like to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the urgency and importance of this problem, because the merger between Electrical and Musical Industries and the Ferguson Radio Company will result in nearly 3,000 people being redundant at E.M.I., some of them being my constituents who have worked there for forty years or more, ever since leaving school. I am sure that the Minister can understand how they feel about this matter. Is he aware that the merger would leave over 200,000 square feet of factory space vacant at Hayes? Does not he agree that it is not in the local or the national interest for that space to be vacant? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that.

Mr. Macleod: Yes. I will indeed. It is always easier to make adequate plans for people who are to be displaced if one has reasonably long notice. We are on this occasion already in touch with the firm, and we will take all the points made by the hon. Gentleman into consideration.

Mr. Skeffington: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these men have been declared redundant entirely as the result of the financial merger and there is no criticism of them? In the circumstances, will the Minister use his influence to see that the men are not discharged before alternative work is available for them?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think I can go as far as that, because it would do much to freeze the pattern of industry and it is in nobody's interest that that should be done. What is important is that if people have to move to another job they should find alternative employment after as short a gap as possible in that area, which remains one of labour shortage. I do not doubt that there will be difficulties, but I am confident that we shall be able to reabsorb these people.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the work is to be transferred to the Ferguson factory at Enfield, that housing in Enfield is difficult, in view of the very long housing lists, and that travel facilities between the west and the north of Middlesex are equally bad? The hope should therefore not be held out to the people who are becoming redundant that employment can be found for them in Enfield.

Mr. Macleod: Yes, I note that point. It is true that what we might call cross-travel facilities are difficult in the Greater London area, but it still remains true that the area around Hayes has an unemployment percentage of only about 1 per cent., which is much below the national average. There will be no difficulty at all for the skilled people, I am sure; for those who are not skilled, we may well have more difficulty in finding alternative employment.

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Labour what action he proposes to take to deal with the unemployment which will arise consequent upon the removal from Hayes, Middlesex, to Liverpool of a large food processing plant; and what steps he proposes to take to find alternative employment for those affected.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am informed that the transfer of this establishment to a Development Area will probably involve the discharge of rather less than 900 full-time and nearly 400 part-time workers during the late summer and early autumn. All those concerned will be invited to register with my Department for other employment, and everything possible will be done to submit them to vacancies.

Mr. Skeffington: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if there are to be about a thousand workers discharged from this plant, plus 3,000 workers mentioned in the previous question, plus the fact that some of the defence contracts in the district are likely to be curtailed or run down to a very much lower level despite the generally favourable conditions of employment, this may cause a very serious situation indeed in Hayes area? Would he treat the matter as one of great urgency?

Mr. Macleod: Indeed, I will look at this matter. It is most unfortunate that the two major redundancies referred to in these questions should coincide. This move is to a Development Area, and, in general, there is much to be said for that, particularly the Merseyside Development Area, which has a 3·4 unemployment percentage and where, contrary to the general trend, unemployment has been rising.

Dock Regulations

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now announce when new dock regulations will be introduced.

Mr. Carr: I regret I am not yet in a position to make a statement. My officers have had useful discussions with representatives of the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association and British Transport Commission, but the practical problems involved are extremely complicated and must be examined further in collaboration with those concerned.

Mr. Skeffington: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the dock authorities were seriously criticised in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords for more than nine months because of their noncompliance with existing regulations? Is he further aware that a small number of men are being drowned every year because adequate provision for saving life is not made; and will the hon. Gentleman get a move on in this matter?

Mr. Carr: We are anxious to get a move on. One of the troubles is that the more closely we look into the matter and the more evidence we have brought to our notice, the more clear it becomes that the provision of additional vertical ladders and hanging chains would not be the best way to ensure safety. New regulations, apart from the doubt whether they would have much effect, might do more harm than good.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Call-up

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour what proposals for selective compulsory service he has under consideration; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Allaun: asked the Minister of Labour how far he intends to advance the age of call-up between 1957 and 1960; and if he will announce immediately the age groups to be called up so as to avoid further uncertainty and unsettlement among youths.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I would refer the hon. Members to my statement in yesterday's debate.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that the plan, at great length, involves a quite arbitrary kind of selectivity in the next three years with equal liability in law but unequal sacrifice in the call-up? Further, is he aware that public opinion will not stand for such arbitrary selectivity without a definite date to end conscription? Has the Minister noted that most newspapers today report that he gave a categorical assurance that the 1940 class would not he called up? Would the Minister make quite plain that according to the Government's White Paper on Defence, all this is quite conditional on the results of voluntary recruitment to the Armed Forces?

Mr. Macleod: Of course. Any prudent Government must make the reservation that if voluntary recruitment does not come up to expectations—and we did this in paragraph 48—then a new situation would arise which we must consider. As far as the 1940 class is concerned, what I said is perfectly clear. I said that the 1940 class remains legally liable but we are not planning on the basis that it will he called up. In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I would say that there is, as I explained exactly to the House yesterday, no new element of selection involved in this separation of the registers into two.

Mr. Allaun: While 1 am delighted that the curse of the call-up appears at last to be on its way out, may I ask the Minister to state exactly how many of the 570,000 men are to be called up and when otherwise the uncertainty about their domestic and industrial life will produce out of a fine body of men a fine crop of spivs?

Mr. Macleod: That is quite untrue. The statement I made to the House yesterday on these matters could not have been clearer. Briefly, I said that the 1940 class was liable but those in it need not

expect to be called up. Some of the 1939 class would be called up. It should be remembered that these plans start on 1st April, 1958, and we have time to consider the views of the House and the country and the Press, which I will be very glad to do; but I am quite certain from my own very detailed study of this matter that the plan I put forward yesterday is the correct one.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Far from being a curse, has not the call-up done a considerable amount of good to a great many young men, for which they have expressed their gratitude in the past?

Mr. Ede: Arising out of the first phrase in the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the first supplementary question, what evidence is there that this is a "prudent" Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME OFFICE

Prison Welfare Officers

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time trained prison welfare officers are employed in Her Majesty's prisons.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): Four prison welfare officers of the type recommended by the Maxwell Committee are in post, and two more posts have been advertised.

Sir L. Plummer: I presume that the Under-Secretary of State appreciates that this is an inadequate staff for the job that has to be done. May I ask whether his right hon. Friend, in reviewing prison staff pay generally, is also considering increasing the pay of welfare officers so that the best types may be employed for this important work?

Mr. Simon: The hon. Member will remember that in the recent prison debate I dealt with the difficulty mentioned in the first part of his supplementary question. The scheme is in the nature of a pilot scheme at the moment and we want to see how it goes before deciding the way it will be further extended. With regard to the second part, pay and conditions of work of prison officers are under review by a Departmental Committee.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In deciding whether the pilot scheme is a success, can the Under-Secretary of State assure us that he will not be unduly influenced by representations from the less progressive discharged prisoners' aid societies?

Mr. Simon: My right hon. Friend is anxious to see this scheme made a success.

Prisoners (Psychiatric Treatment)

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions are made in prisons for psychiatric treatment of prisoners who are homosexual; and what methods are available to ascertain whether prisoners not actually convicted for homosexual offences are, in fact, also practising homosexuals.

Mr. Simon: All prisoners known or suspected to be homosexual are specially examined and, if found suitable for psychotherapy, are sent to a prison with a psychiatric clinic if the sentence is long enough to allow of proper treatment. Homosexuals whose offence gives no indication of their inversion come to notice through their mannerisms or behaviour in prison, or through information obtained from their past records or other sources; but it is unlikely that all are detected in this way.

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners sentenced to prison for sexual offences and promised treatment for their abnormalities do, in fact, receive such treatment.

Mr. Simon: Prisoners sentenced for sexual offences receive psychotherapy if they are found suitable for treatment and if the sentence is long enough to allow of it. Particular attention is always paid to any recommendation by a court. In 1956, 60 men and boys sentenced for sexual offences received treatment by visiting psychotherapists, but I cannot say how many of these had been recommended for treatment by the court at the time of sentence.

Sir L. Plummer: Is it not clear that there is little validity in the statement made constantly by magistrates and judges to sexual offenders that when they go to prison they will receive the medical treatment which they should have for their abnormality? Does not this mean

that there must be a rapid extension of the very admirable psychiatric work now going on in Her Majesty's prisons?

Mr. Simon: I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter, particularly in the psychiatric unit in Wormwood Scrubs. We hope to extend that considerably when we get the new psychiatric institution at Grendon Underwood.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: May we take it from the Under-Secretary of State that he is not very happy about the facilities which are available? Can he give a rather more definite idea to the House when he expects the facilities to be made adequate?

Mr. Simon: It would be very difficult to give a firm date for completion at Grendon Underwood, but a start is to be made this year.

International Labour Organisation (Convention 96)

Mr. Ede: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the negotiations with local authorities and trade unions on the promotion of legislation that is a necessary preliminary to the ratification of the International Labour Organisation's Convention No. 96.

Mr. Simon: My right hon. Friend has agreed to receive a deputation of representatives of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress who wish to discuss certain aspects of the proposed legislation with him.

Mr. Ede: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us any idea how long after that he will be able to make a statement? Two of his predecessors who took part in what he called the "preleminary rounds" of this discussion have already been withdrawn disqualified from the ring.

Mr. Simon: I do not think I can say how soon a statement can be made. It depends how far further discussions may then be necessary.

Orphans (Education)

Mr. Sharples: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of children without parents, foster-parents or guardians who are being educated as boarders at private schools.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Sharpies: What would be the position of a child who is the responsibility of an executor under a will? Would such a child be covered by the provisions of the Children's and Young Persons Act, 1936?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Perhaps my hon. Friend will send me details of the case he has in mind. If the child went to a private school—I think this is the crux of the question he has put to me—the situation will be improved by the bringing into force in the autumn of this year of Part III of the Education Act, in which, as he knows, the registration and inspection of independent schools by the Ministry of Education and the furnishing of particulars will be required by Regulations. If there are other points regarding the non-school life of the child, it will be helpful to have details of the particular case.

Metropolitan Police (Grant)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the amount of the imperial contribution to the Metropolitan police in the year 1910–11, and the proportion of this contribution to total expenditure in that year; what was the amount of the imperial contribution to the Metropolitan police in the year 1955–56, and the proportion of this contribution to total expenditure in that year; and what would be the amount of the imperial contribution if the proportion had been similar to that in the year 1910–11.

Mr. Simon: The amount of the Exchequer grant to the Metropolitan police in respect of imperial and national services was £100,000 in each of the financial years 1910–11 and 1955–56. The grant represented 3·88 per cent. of the total net expenditure of the Metropolitan police in 1910–11 and ·47 per cent. in 1955–56. The amount of the grant in 1955–56 would have been £819,984 if it had borne the same proportion to the total expenditure as in 1910–11.

Mr. Stonehouse: While thanking the Joint Under-Secretary for that very full reply, may I ask him to assure the House that his right hon. Friend will have a

look at this position to correct what is an injustice to ratepayers in the Metropolitan area, in view of the fact that the imperial functions of the Metropolitan police have been increased but the imperial contribution remains the same as it was in 1910?

Mr. Simon: Major Lloyd-George, as he then was, when he was Home Secretary, received a deputation on this subject, and, as a result of that, records are now being kept, so that the matter can be reviewed in the light of modern information.

Mr. Lipton: Do not the records reveal that the £100,000 fixed in 1910 is now completely inadequate?

Mr. Simon: No, Sir. I think it is too early to make any firm pronouncement until we have seen the comparative figures.

Air-Raid Shelter, Halmerend

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give approval to the removal of the air-raid shelter in Station Avenue, Halmerend, in the rural district of Newcastle-under-Lyme, on the ground that it is an unnecessary and unsightly object.

Mr. Simon: In reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) on the 11th instant, my right hon. Friend explained the grounds on which the removal of shelters is authorised. He is informed that no such grounds exist in this particular case.

Mr. Swingler: While thanking the hon. and learned Gentleman for referring to the previous reply, may I ask him if he can tell the citizens of Halmerend what on earth is the point of maintaining air-raid shelters locked up and dotted around in remote villages? Has he read the Government's Defence White Paper, and, having read it, will he now tell my constituents why they should put up with this public nuisance, and give positive reasons for it?

Mr. Simon: Outside the area of complete devastation by a hydrogen bomb, sound last-war shelters would give protection against blast, against heat and against radioactive fall-out, especially if


improved by the thickening of the walls and roofs with sandbags and the like. It is for that reason that, where the structure is sound and where there are no reasons of obstruction or health for their removal, it is the policy of the Government that these shelters should be retained.

Mr. G. Jeger: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what would happen if one or two of the local inhabitants went out one dark night with pick-axes and removed one or two bricks from the shelter and made it a dangerous structure which the local authority would then have to remove?

Mr. Simon: The hon. Gentleman will certainly not expect me to reply to a hypothetical question, still less when it presupposes an illegality.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In view of the fact that the House was not impressed by the Home Secretary's reply, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger), and that most hon. Members regard the value of these shelters from the last war as being purely minimal, would he give an undertaking that the Home Office will look again at the whole shelter policy and see if it is not possible to give a more favourable answer to my hon. Friend who asked the question?

Mr. Simon: No, Sir. This matter has been carefully considered, and these shelters are thought to offer a substantial measure of protection which it would be unwise to give up at this moment.

Convicted Police Officers (Evidence)

Mr. Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inquiry is made by his Department, when an officer of the Metropolitan police has been convicted for such offences as breaking and entering and larceny, into cases in which the same officer has previously given evidence for the Crown against persons convicted of like offences.

Mr. Simon: An inquiry is ordered by the Commissioner of Police where the circumstances give grounds for any suspicion that an injustice may have been done in earlier cases.

Mr. Allaun: While thanking the Joint Under-Secretary for that Answer, may I

ask him if he is aware that there have been several cases recently in which great suspicion has been aroused that convicted police officers have pinned the guilt for their previous crimes on innocent persons and even those who, to use the common phrase, are known to the police?

Mr. Simon: Apart from the two cases which are sub judice, I have not got in mind the cases to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he would care to send details to me I will certainly have them looked into.

Sir L. Plummer: May I ask the Minister whether such an inquiry was inaugurated when a member of Metropolitan Police, giving evidence in a case in which a man who was then a Member of this House was concerned, confessed in the witness box that he had committed perjury and fainted? Was there an inquiry in that case, and is that man still in the force?

Mr. Simon: I have not got that case in mind, and I should be grateful if the hon. Member will give me further details.

Anti-Semitic Propaganda

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will have inquiries made about the Nazi indoctrination and actions of persons applying for admission to the United Kingdom with a view to preventing the admission to this country of persons responsible for the teaching and spreading of such doctrines here.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am not aware of any activities of this kind, but if the hon. Member will let me know what specific cases he has in mind, I will make inquiries and communicate with him.

Mr. Janner: If on making inquiries the hon. Lady discovers that there is a considerable amount of anti-Semitic propaganda of the Nazi type being used in camps and other places, will she deal with it?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Within the law as it stands, we will take any necessary steps to prevent any offensive activities in these camps, but I think the hon. Member must draw the line between the free expression of opinion and Nazi indoctrination, which is what he calls it.


Certainly, within the law, we will take any action we can against such publications.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has given consideration to the antisemitic journal published by some Hungarians who have been given asylum in Great Britain, a copy of which journal has been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West; and whether he will take appropriate steps by introducing legislation or otherwise to prevent similar Nazi literature from being produced and circulated in Great Britain.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My attention has been already drawn to this publication, which is in the Hungarian language, and steps were taken to see that no facilities were given for its display or distribution in hostels for Hungarian refugees. My right hon. Friend does not think that any further action on his part is called for, but a close watch will be kept on activities of the kind referred to.

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Lady aware of the fact that there are a lot of people like myself who urged that as many refugees as possible should be brought into this country who were fleeing from persecution in Hungary and other places? Is she aware that this type of publication is a very serious abuse of the right of asylum, and will she take further steps to make certain that this is not allowed, because it is, in fact, a very serious Nazi method of trying to make a distinction between one section of the community and another?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I sympathise very fully with the hon. Member's objections to the sentiments expressed in this publication, but I should like to clear up one matter which he has mentioned—that we freely let in Hungarian refugees without any screening. The person responsible for the particular publication which he has in mind has been here many years, and if in fact any of his actions offend against the law, he will be made answerable for them.

Mr. Ede: In view of the fact that it is known that on occasion people holding the view to which my hon. Friend and I object come into this country sometimes in order to send information back about

their fellow nationals who are here by permission, and on other occasions perform other acts that make the lives of these people miserable, will the hon. Lady assure us that if any alien here carries out this kind of wicked enterprise he will be immediately deported?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think the right hon. Member knows that the situation is very carefully watched by efficient services under the Home Office and that certainly we would not hesitate to use all the powers we have if circumstances such as the right hon. Member has outlined came about.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Block Grant

Mr. Awbery: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what progress has been made in the discussions with regard to the effect of the new structure of state grants to local authorities upon the education grant and upon the future education programme.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I cannot yet add to what I said in the debate on 5th April.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that people who take a particular interest in education, such as teachers' organisations, are very much concerned about the allocation of the grant, which might affect children in future? Will he give an assurance that, in the reallocation of the grant, the position will not be worse than it is now?

Sir E. Boyle: I know the concern about this matter. I made a fairly full statement on it in the House on 5th April. I would ask the hon. Member to have a look at that, because it contains the answers to some of the questions he has asked.

Mr. Ede: Will the hon. Gentleman help to clarify the matter by removing some of the cloudiness with which he surrounded his statement on that occasion?

Sir E. Boyle: I thought my statement was pretty precise.

Copperbelt Technical Foundation (Lecturers)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what encouragement was given by his Department, through educational institutions and establishments in the United Kingdom, to graduates in higher technical subjects to apply for appointments as lecturers with the Copperbelt Technical Foundation of Northern Rhodesia.

Sir E. Boyle: Responsibility for higher education in the Federation rests with the Federal Government, and any assistance with recruitment could only be on the invitation of the Federal Government or of the Foundation. Neither the Government nor the Foundation has approached my Department.

Mr. Stonehouse: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that this institution in one of the Commonwealth countries is a most important one, and that it is important that graduates from this country should play a part in it?

Sir E. Boyle: Of course this is an important matter, but the supplementary question raises rather wider considerations.

Warwickshire

Mr. Moss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education the number of pupils continuing their full-time education in secondary modern schools in the County of Warwick after the statutory school-leaving age has been reached; to what extent the number has been increasing; and whether outside visits play an important part in their activities.

Sir E. Boyle: In January, 1956, there were 141 pupils over the age of fifteen in Warwickshire secondary modern schools, rather fewer than in 1955 or 1954. No figures are yet available for 1957. The arrangement of outside visits is a matter for the head teacher of each school.

Mr. Moss: Does not the Minister agree that the tendency of pupils over the statutory school-leaving age to stay on at school is something to be encouraged? Does he realise that in schools which are already obsolete and overcrowded this

matter gives rise to further difficulties, and in the case of Warwickshire may be of importance?

Sir E. Boyle: I certainly agree that we want to encourage children to stay longer at school. I said so on 5th April. I would only add that we should not take too seriously small changes in the figures from year to year. The local authority has in hand schemes to attract children to stay longer at secondary modern schools.

Mr. Moss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education the average number of pupils at the Wilnecote Secondary Modern School in the County of Warwick during 1956; what increase is anticipated during 1957 and 1958; and what is being done to accommodate additional pupils.

Sir E. Boyle: There were 319 pupils at this school in January, 1956, and 349 in January, 1957. Numbers are expected to increase by about twenty this year and thirty next year. Two additional hutted classrooms will be available next September.

Mr. Moss: Will the Parliamentary Secretary help me out of a difficulty? In reply to me on 14th March, he said that the new school at Wilnecote:
will be ready by the time the additional children for whom it is needed are of secondary school age."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1957; Vol. 566, c. 1283.]
I take it from his Answer today that the numbers are already rising in an overcrowded school? How does he reconcile his first Answer with his Answer today?

Sir E. Boyle: I will look at that, but the present position is that the average size of classes in January, 1957, was thirty-five. It should be easier to reduce the numbers when the new classrooms are ready, provided the local education authority can obtain sufficient teachers.

Mr. Moss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education whether the Wilnecote Secondary Modern School in the county of Warwick is now adequately staffed.

Sir E. Boyle: The staffing of this school last term, though slightly better than a year ago, was not as good as the local education authority would have liked.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

Soviet Embassy, Ottawa (Reception)

Mr. Benn: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations why the British High Commissioner in Ottawa did not attend the official reception given by the Soviet Ambassador to celebrate the opening of the new Soviet Embassy on 9th April.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): He was not invited.

Mr. Benn: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the fact that in the United States newspapers—the New York Herald Tribunte, for example—it was reported that the British and United States representatives had boycotted this reception? Has his Department let it be generally known that no invitations were in fact sent?

Mr. Alport: My Department is not responsible for what appears in American or any other newspapers.

Mr. Benn: Is the hon. Gentleman taking steps to see that the true explanation is understood because, if I had not chosen to put down this Question, it would be generally thought in the United States and here that the British representative had refused to accept?

Mr. Alport: The Question and my Answer will, I am sure, make the position quite clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF SPORT

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Minister of Sport.

Sir E. Boyle: I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir. Having taken the duty off sport, the Government do not consider that it is necessary to impose a Minister on it.

Mr. Lipton: Leaving jokes on one side, is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the disclosures about Sunderland Football Club, the time is ripe for a clean-up of professional football and some other sports, including sham

amateurism? Could not that best be achieved, if not by having a Minister of Sport, by having an independent advisory body, appointed by the Government, which could keep sport and various governing bodies under review?

Sir E. Boyle: Perhaps at the appropriate time we could have a debate in this House on sham amateurism. The hon. Member has all the sport he needs without there being a Minister to look after it.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the reluctance of the Prime Minister to appoint a Minister of Sport does not mean that there is not still a place for an outside right even in a party team?

Mr. Gaitskell: In congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on his "promotion" and the wittiness of his reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that there is a strong case for assisting sport and that his own Department could do a great deal more in that direction?

Sir E. Boyle: Of course, it is the policy of my noble Friend, the Minister of Education, to foster physical education in schools, and local authorities use their powers under Section 53 of the Act to provide physical and other forms of recreation. I was prepared for that one.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Motor Car Manufacturers (Steel Supplies)

Mr. Albu: asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the motor car manufacturers about the shortage of steel sheet which they anticipate will arise later in the year.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): None, Sir. The availability of future supplies of sheet steel is a matter for discussion by the motor industry with the sheet steel producers and with the Iron and Steel Board.

Mr. Albu: Will the Parliamentary Secretary suggest to his right hon. Friend that, before permission is given to the motor car industry to import sheet steel, in view of the serious position of our gold and dollar reserves, there should be an insistence on a definite proportion of the increase of production going to exports?

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend is aware of that Socialist proposal, but we do not think it would be wise to act upon it.

Mr. Albu: Does that mean that the Government are prepared to see a situation similar to that which occurred in 1955 and the early part of 1956, in which the increasing cost of steel imports was far greater than the exports of the motor car industry which caused them?

Mr. Erroll: It is not necessarily the case that the 1955 situation will repeat itself.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

House Purchase (Loans)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will establish a building society under Treasury control for granting loans to house-purchasers, subject to small deposits and low fixed interest rates.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): No, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that very heavy deposits and very high interest rates, which are liable to be raised at any time, make the business a nightmare for young married couples in particular? Will not the Government take some positive action on the lines suggested in this Question to encourage the property-owning democracy about which we have heard from time to time?

Mr. Powell: The question of assistance to house purchase, either by local authorities or the central Government, is one for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Jay: What exactly does the policy of the Government achieve in making it almost impossible for people to buy houses?

Mr. Powell: If the right hon. Member is referring to the general effects of the policy of the Government in regard to credit, that is a very much wider matter.

Mr. D. Howell: Is the Minister aware that young couples engaged in buying houses find that every time the Bank rate goes up they are immediately faced with

an increase in mortgage rates, but they are disgusted to find that now the Bank rate is showing signs of going down building societies have not followed that lead by reducing mortgage rates? Would he give the view of the Government on that situation?

Mr. Powell: Mortgage contracts between borrowers and building societies are contracts between private persons.

Mr. Jay: Whatever may be the wider merits or demerits of the Government's policy, what is the advantage of making it exceedingly expensive for ordinary people to buy houses?

Mr. Powell: As I have said before to the right hon. Member, that is only one aspect of the Government's general policy in the control and restriction of credit, which cannot be debated on this Question.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that many local authorities adopt the principle laid down in the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act in order to encourage people to buy their houses? Could not he extend this principle to the State, because only about half of the local authorities adopt the Act?

Mr. Powell: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answers of the hon. Member to all the questions, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Exports of Live Cattle (Report)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has yet received the Report of the Committee inquiring into the treatment of cattle exported for slaughter on the Continent; and what action is proposed.

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive and publish the report of the Departmental Committee on the Export of Live Cattle for Slaughter.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland received this Report yesterday, and it will be published shortly after Easter. The Committee's recommendations will be studied urgently and an announcement of the Government's intentions made as soon as possible.
My right hon. Friends would like to take this opportunity of thanking Lord Balfour of Burleigh and the members of his Committee for their very valuable services, and, in particular, for the rapidity with which they have carried out their investigations.

Mr. Hurd: I am sure that the whole House will wish to join in paying tribute to the Committee, which has done its job very quickly. Can my hon. Friend say how this export trade in cattle for slaughter on the Continent is going today? Are as many being sent now as were being sent three or four months ago, when the Committee was set up?

Mr. Godber: There has been a considerable falling off. I would not like to commit myself to actual numbers, but I should think that they have been reduced approximately by half. That has perhaps reduced the urgency of the matter, but I know how important it is in the minds of hon. Members, and we will try to give our views on it at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Dye: Can the hon. Member say whether the members of the Committee saw for themselves the conditions in France and other Continental countries before they came to any conclusions in this matter?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. The members of the Committee travelled very widely. They went to all sorts of foreign countries. I almost included Scotland, but perhaps I had better not. They have certainly been to France and other Continental countries and examined every possible aspect of this matter in the very short time they have been working.

Mr. G. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that there is a certain amount of disquiet in the country because the inquiry is limited in its scope and does not include

the export of sheep and pigs? Is he further aware that a number of people have written to me and, presumably, to other hon. Members who are interested in the subject? Will he keep an open mind upon it, and if an opportunity arises for referring back to the Committee, will he do so?

Mr. Godber: That is a rather wider question. We have no evidence of any substantial export of either sheep or pigs. We are as concerned as the hon. Member to prevent cruelty in these matters, however, and if he likes to bring any particular cases to our notice we shall look into them.

Mr. Willey: I should like to join in the tribute which has been paid to the work of this Committee. This matter is likely to be discussed in the Council of Europe, as there is general interest in it, and if the Minister can assure us that the Report will be published in time it will be very helpful to our discussions there.

Mr. Godber: I cannot give an undertaking today. We have only just received the Report and we must look at it in all its aspects. We shall certainly bear that point in mind.

Rabbits

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received up to the latest date of rabbits increasing in different parts of the country; and in which districts myxomatosis is still effective in checking this increase.

Mr. Godber: The latest report indicates some increase in rabbit numbers in most counties in England and Wales. Myxomatosis will not by itself prevent the rabbit population from building up once again, but in Hampshire, and to a lesser extent in Nottinghamshire and Pembrokeshire, the disease appears to have had some effect in checking the increase.

Mr. Hurd: is my hon. Friend satisfied that the pest officers and pest committees in the counties have been doing their utmost to keep chasing these rabbits and getting farmers to chase them, and will continue to do so even through the breeding season and the summer?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. We are very much aware of the importance of trying to keep this pest within bounds. In the last few months we have carried out a most energetic campaign, during the period that we thought most favourable. We shall continue to do all we possibly can, but my hon. Friend will realise that it is not an easy matter.

Eggs (Exports)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to which countries eggs have been exported in the past three months; and what it the cost of subsidy carried by these eggs.

Mr. Godber: The latest available information is for the three months from December to February, when about 13,000 boxes of eggs were exported to twenty-one countries. As the list of countries is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The best estimate that can be made of the subsidy incurred on these eggs is about £40,000.

Mr. Hurd: Does my hon. Friend regard this as a temporary phase in our overseas trade, and does he think that when we get the Egg Marketing Board to work it will be able to boost the home sale of home-produced eggs, so that there will not be any surplus which can be exported?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. We hope that this is a temporary phase. It is certainly not our intention to try to stimulate this export trade. I very much hope that the Egg Marketing Board, as one of its first measures, will do all that it can to try to stimulate additional sales in this country.

Mr. Wiley: Is the Minister aware that Denmark is considerably concerned about this matter, and about the effect upon the West German market? Can he tell the House what is happening in regard to the present discussions in Denmark?

Mr. Godber: Denmark has made several representations to Her Majesty's Government upon this point. We have explained the position to her to the best of our ability. I think that she has made an approach to G.A.T.T. upon the matter, and I do not think that it would be proper for me to comment further upon it.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is there any substance in this protestation by Denmark that we have defaulted from the G.A.T.T. agreement on this matter? Will he confirm or deny that that is so?

Mr. Godber: I would rather not be drawn too far on this point, but it would appear that we have not defaulted in any way because the prices at which eggs are exported are the same as those at which they are available to consumers here.

Following is the list:

Channel Islands
Gibraltar.
Malta and Gozo.
Gambia.
Sierra Leone.
Gold Coast.
Nigeria.
Bahrein.
Qatar.
Bermuda.
Trinidad and Tobago
Falkland Islands
Irish Republic.
Western Germany
Netherlands.
France.
Switzerland.
Italy.
Spanish West Africa.
Burma.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Carriageway Marking Experiment

Sir N. Hulbert: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will state the object of the twin white line experiment; and what is the estimated cost thereof.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): The object of the experiment is to try out the advantages to traffic of a more rational form of carriageway marking, widely used abroad, and to determine the best standards and patterns for such markings. The rule is for motorists not to cross the solid white line when it is on their side of the road. The cost is estimated at £7,500.

Sir N. Hulbert: How many man-hours have been employed in carrying out this work, which many motorists believe will not reduce road accidents at all? Does the figure of £7,500 which the Minister has given include the cost of the innumerable extremely well-made signposts dotted all over the roads?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, it does. It includes both the cost of the carriageway markings and the cost of the signs, but if the effect of this experiment is to improve the standard of driving and road safety, and reduce accidents, I think that it will be money well spent.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I welcome the fact that this experiment is being tried, in view of the success with which it has been operating in many other countries, but does not the Minister agree that unless penalties are imposed for infringement—after the first period of experimentation has been carried out—it is unlikely to succeed, in view of the fact that motorists are apt to ignore the rules of the road unless there are penalties for infringement?

Mr. Nugent: I agree. After the experimental stage is over, and when we have established whether this method will be suitable for our roads, we shall certainly proceed to make these carriageway markings mandatory and those crossing them liable to prosecution.

Road Traffic (Convention)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when it is proposed to ratify the International Convention on Road Traffic,

to which the United Kingdom became a signatory in 1949.

Mr. Nugent: My right hon. Friend hopes to lay a draft Order before Parliament for the necessary Affirmative Resolutions shortly after Easter. Ratification will follow as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. Davies: Is it not regrettable that this has been delayed so long? November, the Minister stated that he hoped to lay this Order before the beginning of the tourist season, because it gives considerable advantages to tourists bringing their cars into this country. It is now said that it is hoped to lay it shortly after Easter. Cannot an assurance be given that it will be laid at the earliest possible moment, so that the maximum number of tourists can enjoy the full advantage of it?

Mr. Nugent: Mr. Speaker, the delay is regrettable, but it has been an intricate matter drafting this Order to fit in with all our domestic requirements. We are, indeed, at present waiting upon the hon. Member and his right hon. Friends, following our communication to them fulfilling the undertaking given in 1952 that we would consult them on this draft Order before we actually laid it. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that his hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) already has a copy of the substance of the draft.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heath.]

GIBRALTAR (SPANISH VISAS)

12 noon.

Mr. George Jeger: In the limited time that has been allotted to the subject I want to raise—the difficulties at the land frontier between Spain and Gibraltar—I do not propose to go into the history of the present troubles there. I think that if I briefly gave the background to the situation that has arisen over the last three years it would perhaps enable the Under-Secretary of State to deal with the matter more fully.
It should be stated that the present position with regard to the frontier visas and regulations has deteriorated over the last three years. Originally, there was a reciprocal agreement between the Spanish and British Governments which extended the validity of visas from three months to one year, for any number of journeys.
After Her Majesty the Queen had paid a visit to Gibraltar—which was much resented by the Spanish Government and the Spanish frontier authorities—the Spanish Government closed their consulate in Gibraltar, and made all sorts of difficulties for Gibraltarians wishing to cross the frontier into Spain. They also imposed regulations so that the visas were valid only for three visits within three months. In practice, of course, the people of Gibraltar could renew their visas on payment of a fee, and, although it was inconvenient and expensive, that did not prevent them from visiting Spain as often as they wanted to.
A new agreement was arrived at recently, and an arrangement was made for a yearly validity of the visa. This pleased the people of Gibraltar, who welcomed it as an improvement in Gibraltar-Spanish relations. After two weeks of these new regulations, the visa was not honoured at the frontier of La Linea—the frontier we are discussing this morning; the land frontier between Gibraltar and Spain. It was generally felt, in Gibraltar, that there was gross discrimination against them, because there were no such restrictions at any Spanish frontier other than that with Gibraltar. They had one fortnight only

of the new regulations being observed. After that, the old regulations superseded them. Representations were made, I think by the Foreign Office, and a relaxation was arrived at whereby the old three-monthly, three-visit visa again came into force.
The people of Gibraltar feel that they are being made to suffer in a manner not experienced by any other visitor to Spain. The only frontier post where these regulations obtain is that at La Linea. Those facts were brought out quite clearly in Answers which I received to Questions, particularly on 25th March, when the hon. Gentleman himself replied to the effect that there were unfortunate incidents at the Gibraltar frontier; that the old arrangement was altered, and that, after representations, a new visa would be valid
…for three entries and exits per quarter at the Gibraltar frontier and for an unlimited number of entries and exits at all other frontiers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1957; Vol. 567, c. 79.]
There is, therefore, no evading the issue of visa discrimination against Gibraltar.
I understand that the Spanish authorities argued that the facilities at La Linea were not adequate to deal with the traffic. That, of course, is absurd. Anybody who has been there, as I have, and to other Spanish frontiers, knows that the La Linea facilities are better than at any other Spanish frontier post, and the amount of traffic with which it has to cope is not so great that it cannot easily be dealt with. Further, no such problem arose before 1954. Since 1954, we have had to deal with a succession of pinpricks, restrictions and unfortunate, unpleasant incidents, all of which have been imposed by the Spanish authorities only at this land frontier.
The Spanish authorities are now saying that Algeciras is the proper frontier point for that district, and, indeed, the Joint Under-Secretary himself told me, on 1st April, that the approved frontier post for this area is at Algeciras. But Algeciras is not a frontier post. It is a seaport, and, consequently, cannot in any way be regarded as a frontier post. There is a much more important principle at stake than the question of whether one frontier post or another port should be used. The principle is that of discrimination against British subjects who are resident in


Gibraltar as compared with British subjects who are residents elsewhere.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State denied that there was any discrimination against British subjects. He said that the discrimination was against the frontier, but I do not think that it can be denied that when a tourist arrives with a British passport issued in Britain he is treated at the La Linea frontier very differently from the way in which a Gilbraltarian with a British passport is treated at that very same frontier. Furthermore, the discrimination and the regulations are obviously designed to work against the Gibraltarians. The Gibraltarian wishes to go into Spain more frequently than a tourist who would be making, possibly, only one holiday visit a year into that country.
The people of Gibraltar live in a very close, confined community. It is a very small Colony, and the only frontier is that with Spain. They go into Spain on business, for medical reasons, to visit their families—for many of the people of Gibraltar have married into Spanish families—for pleasure, and for various other reasons. There is a constant stream of taxis, buses and lorries going backwards and forwards, and the new frontier regulations look like putting many of those people out of business.
Who can we blame for this? Gibraltar is a British Colony, and, of course, comes under the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but in this connection I am happy to say that we cannot blame that Minister. We can, however, blame the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office is being condemned in correspondence I have had from responsible Gibraltarian citizens—and here I quote some of their remarks—for being "weak", "complacent", "conciliatory", "practising appeasement", and "pursuing a policy of 'don't let us annoy Spain', and 'don't let us disturb British trade with Spain'".
That is what is being said by the Gibraltarians. When I raised this matter with the Foreign Secretary himself, he told me that
… we have procured some slight alleviations.
He quoted one such alleviation as
 the rate at which currency could be exchanged …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1957; Vol. 565. c. 1222.]

I am informed by people in Gibraltar that this alleviation of the currency exchange rate is of no benefit at all to them. It benefits only the Spanish importers of fruit and vegetables who now get more pesetas for their £s, and there is no change whatever in the prices of those commodities on sale in Gibraltar.
The answers to the various Questions which I have been putting for some time on this matter have been evasive and uneasy. As an example of one of them, I would quote from the Secretary of State himself who, on 27th February, said:
 … the position regarding Spanish restrictions on intercourse between Gibraltar and Spain remains essentially as stated in my reply to the hon. Member of 6th June last."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1957; Vol. 565, c. 1221.]
That was after a period of eight months and the situation remained the same there was no progress at all in eight months.
I have had replies from all three Ministers attached to the Foreign Office —the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and the Joint Under-Secretary of State. Therefore, none of them can "pass the buck" to any of the others, or repudiate his own responsibility.
What is the effect of all this on the Gibraltarians themselves? I have quoted some of their remarks about the behaviour of the Foreign Office in this matter, but what are their own feelings? I must confess that they are feeling bitter. They feel that their interests are being ignored by the mother country. They are feeling cynical because the value of their loyalty is nil and their loyalty is being taken for granted. They have said to me, "We are not a Cyprus. We are 100 per cent. loyal to Britain, and there is not a single voice in Gibraltar which has ever been raised for the ceding of Gibraltar to Spain."
The Gibraltarians feel deeply humiliated. Their treatment at the frontier, the imposition of these restrictions and the sneering arrogance of some of the Spanish frontier officials give them a feeling of deep humiliation. They are feeling terribly hurt because they is no understanding of their problems here in Britain or sympathy expressed with them by the Foreign Office. Moreover, they are feeling uncertain about the future, for if these measures of discrimination are


allowed to be practised now without any serious protests by Her Majesty's Government, they are apprehensive of further discrimination which may be introduced in the future once the Spanish authorities feel that they can get away with what they are doing without arousing any protest from Britain.
All this is being conducted in an atmosphere of Spanish propaganda, which is pumped into Gibraltar by the radio and by the Press, that eventually Britain intends to hand Gibraltar back to Spain. That is the keynote of Spanish propaganda, and who can doubt that it is sowing a few seeds of doubt in the minds of hitherto loyal Gibraltarians when nothing is done by the Government about it.
A factor which is contributing towards this uncertainty is the delay which has occurred in the establishment of Gibraltar's own radio station which could relay news from Britain to the Gibraltarians efficiently and properly. At present, most of them have to listen to the Spanish radio because there is not an efficient British radio working in the Colony. The Government know of this. This matter has been raised time after time in Questions, in Adjournment debates and in other ways.
I should like to know what the Foreign Office is doing and what it proposes to do to alleviate the position of Gibraltar. I suggest that the Government should take the initiative in reopening talks with the Spanish on this issue. There are various ways in which the matter could be raised. Spain depends to a large extent upon her trade with Britain, and particularly upon the holiday traffic which, from this time of the year until the autumn, will flood into Spain, which is an attractive and cheap country for holiday purposes, which has an abundance of sunshine and is becoming more and more popular with tourists.
Now that our relations with America are on a more friendly basis, American influence could be enlisted, for America has great influence at the moment in Spain where she has bases and a number of Service men quartered. But I think all discussions with the Spanish authorities should be based upon two fundamental principles. First, there should be no discrimination against British subjects wherever they are resident, in Britain or

Gibraltar, Secondly, the arrangements made between Britain and Spain should be reciprocal.
As a basis for the discussions, I suggest that visas should be valid for a reasonable period—say, one year—for unlimited visits between Gibraltar and Spain. If it is found necessary, as it has been in the past, to operate some sort of frontier control so that the Spanish Government could control the number of people who go across the frontier—they do not want people to live in Spain and work in Gibraltar without a control —they could operate the kind of system that they had before, whereby people were not allowed to stay in Spain overnight without getting a permit from the Frontier Delegate. That worked quite well before 1934 and there is no reason why it should not be reintroduced.
Alternatively, they could issue visas valid for, say, 12 visits a year, which would be a reasonable number, subject to the visas being renewable when those 12 visits were exhausted. That would provide a reasonable basis for a settlement of the frontier problem, and I think the present time is one which would be suitable for the reopening of these discussions.
One can only judge by small straws that one sees floating in the wind, but I think there has recently been a sign of a change of attitude on the part of the Spanish Government. Let us take, for example, the recent visit of Her Majesty the Queen to Portugal. This was boycotted by the Spanish Press, which did not mention the visit at all. On the other hand, the more recent visit of Her Majesty to Paris was given great prominence in the Spanish Press, and that indicates, although perhaps in an indirect manner, a change of attitude towards Britain by the Spanish authorities.
Something must be done by Her Majesty's Government soon. The morale of the loyal, worthy people in Gibraltar is crumbling. It is not yet crumbling very much, but the Gibraltarians are dismayed by the absence at the Foreign Office of any sympathy with or understanding of the problems they have to face. They are becoming increasingly dismayed at the way in which the frontier restrictions are hitting them, and nothing is being done about it.
I appeal to Her Majesty's Government, through the Foreign Office, to take some action immediately, to offer some words of comfort and sympathy to the people of Gibraltar and to utter words of firmness and decision to the Spanish authorities, for we must establish one matter definitely We must make it plain that we intend to remain in Gibraltar, that Gibraltar is British and shall remain British—because if we do not establish that point I think the best thing we can do is to get out of Gibraltar quickly before the position deteriorates and the Gibraltarians are put into an even worse position than they are today.

12.19 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner: The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) for having today brought this matter to its notice in such a comprehensive and, if I may say so with respect, admirable manner. I do not propose to detain the House long, but it should be known that my lion. Friend is far from being the only hon. Member who feels about the situation as he does. I should like it to go on record, as far as I am concerned, anyhow, that my view on this issue has been very similar to his; and I know that other hon. Members have felt very deeply about the matter, too.
It is very unfortunate that this loyal section of our people in Gibraltar, who are undoubtedly extremely anxious to feel part and parcel of the British people in the fullest sense of the term, as, indeed, they are, should find themselves, as my hon. Friend has said, humiliated by the fact that what is natural for them, that is, crossing the border into Spain, which has been going on for many years, is now being restricted. Quite obviously, this is bound to create a sort of claustrophobic feeling among the inhabitants of that very small Colony. Where are they to go? Why should they be prevented from, as it were, crossing the road? After all, it amounts to little more than crossing the road; it is as though the people of a small town in our own country had a barrier around them and were allowed to go about only when their neighbours on the other side of the barrier chose to let them through.
This is a very serious matter. It means that these loyal subjects who, in spite of everything—here, I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend—would, I believe, fight for British control being retained in Gibraltar, though perhaps with heavier hearts—

Mr. G. Jeger: I hope that I did not give the impression that any of the Gibraltarians are feeling that they would like to go over to Spain except as visitors.

Mr. Janner: I did not mean that.

Mr. Jeger: They certainly do not want Gibraltar to be handed over to Spain. In my closing remarks, I emphasised that, in my view, we should make it quite clear that Gibraltar remains British, or else we should make it clear that we are not going to play with the problem and we should give it back to Spain. We should do one or the other.

Mr. Janner: Far be it from me for a moment to imply that my hon. Friend believes that they will have a change of heart. But it might be with heavier hearts that they would remain. They would, perhaps, feel more like step-children rather than children of the mother country, but, nevertheless, they feel a very strong, unbreakable bond between the rest of the British people and themselves.
Why do not the Government take a further stand? My hon. Friend has given us reasons for thinking that that stand would probably not be resisted. I cannot see why it should be resisted by the Spaniards. It should be put in plain terms that the people of Gibraltar want to go into Spain from time to time and that they are being treated as a kind of second or third-class human being—not as second or third-class citizens, because they are obviously not citizens of Spain —and the Spanish Government should be reminded that to take this attitude is quite contrary to the general trend now, particularly when visas are coming to be regarded as more or less unnecessary generally.
The matter has been raised a number of times. I hope that the Minister will say today that he proposes to do something, and do it quickly. I am sure that the friends I have in Gibraltar, who complain to me from time to time about these incidents, would feel very relieved if such a statement were made. It would result


in a better understanding not only between ourselves and the Gibraltarians, but also a better understanding between the Gibraltarians and their close neighbours in Spain.

12.25 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey): I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) and to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) for raising this matter in objective terms and, if I may say so, for not having spent a great deal of time going into some of the detailed incidents which have occurred, which, although important, we can well dispense with in the discussion.
It is important to recognise that the recent difficulties which have occurred on the frontier—let us at once admit that there have been difficulties—have not affected only Gibraltarians. The most recent difficulties we have had on the frontier have arisen since the new visa arrangements came in and were entirely connected with visitors from the United Kingdom who had gone to Gibraltar and wished to go into Spain. The incidents occurred at the La Linea frontier post.
For the benefit of the House, I should say that this new visa arrangement came in in 1956. The arrangement is that visas are valid for 12 months. At the Gibraltar frontier they allow for three entries and exits per quarter, which is the same as before, and for other frontiers an unlimited number of exits and entries. That is, as the hon. Member for Goole said, a discrimination. It is a discrimination directed against a frontier.
The argument about the La Linea frontier is this. The Spanish say that it is a police post and is not equipped for normal frontier traffic. It is argued that the official frontier port is Algeciras. It must be obvious to anyone who knows the area that Algeciras is most inconvenient for Gibraltarians, and I believe that there is some reason to doubt the logic of the arguments which have been advanced. At the same time, before I come to say what action has been taken, I should observe—the House will accept this—that the frontier arrangements which any country maintains are fundamentally its own affair, and that we should be lacking in reasonableness if we did not accept that.
The Spanish Government have said—this is very much to the point—that they wish these difficulties to be treated by them with good will. And, in view of the considerable importance which we know they attach to the tourist traffic, it is clear that good will should be exercised. No one wishes to embark upon holiday travel in adverse circumstances.
Her Majesty's Government cannot accept as logical the argument about the La Linea frontier post, and they do not accept the arrangements at Algeciras as a satisfactory alternative. I want to express at once my total agreement with the views put by both hon. Members on the subject of Gibraltar. I can give the complete assurance of Her Majesty's Government that, we recognise and appreciate the loyalty of the people of Gibraltar. It is no intention of ours that there should be any change in the position with regard to them, and it is as well that the Government of Spain should exactly understand our attitude on that matter.
We have, in fact, presented a Note to the Spanish Ambassador on 16th April accepting the assurances given that the Government of Spain wish to treat this matter in a spirit of good will, but indicating that we believe that these travel difficulties ought to be overcome. In the circumstances, we hope that consideration will shortly be given, in the terms of our Note, to further examination of the problems that exist on that frontier.
I am obliged to the hon. Member for Goole for raising this matter, for it has given me an opportunity of informing the House of the action we have taken. I am obliged to him, too, because I think it is desirable that the Spanish Government should recognise that we are anxious to maintain the friendliest relations with them and to ensure that the very considerable travel facilities that exist and are used by many people from this country should be maintained.
At the same time, we also have a very clear regard for the interests of the people of Gibraltar, for whom we are directly responsible. In the light of that, we hope very much that the note that we have presented will be given the consideration which is due to it and that better arrangements and a more satisfactory state of affairs may be the outcome.

Mr. Jeger: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, therefore, to take steps to ensure that in future the Minister of State does not reply to Questions in the manner which he did on 10th April, when he said:
The new arrangements now appear to be working satisfactorily."?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1957; Vol. 568, c. 1132.]
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that caused considerable dismay in Gibraltar?

Mr. Harvey: Some of these points have come more closely to our attention since that occasion. We have had, obviously, to consider the matter in some detail with those on the spot. Reports are not always authentic. We have to examine them and to make quite certain that all the details given to us are accurate. That has been done and, therefore, we have sent the Note to which I have referred.

LABOUR RELATIONS

12.32 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: Recent strikes in the shipbuilding and engineering industries have shocked all thinking people. How could it happen that men in good jobs and with a secure future could deliberately jeopardise their future? How could it happen that leaders of great industries should be prepared to see their works brought to a standstill?
For here we are, 50 million people crowded together in this little Island, our prosperity—indeed, our whole future—depending on a high level of productivity and. above all, on the prompt execution of our export orders. Any slowing down of production, from whatever cause, endangers the livelihood not only of the workers directly affected, but of all of us. How, then, do these things happen, and what can be done to limit them?
Let us not imagine that our industrial difficulties are worse than those of other nations—they are not. In fact, our record is much better than that of any other country. Nevertheless, strikes are of greater seriousness to us because our economy is so finely balanced. Given good management and proper labour relations, combined with effective Government budgetary and monetary policies,

no possibility of unemployment in this country within the foreseeable future is possible. Indeed, with an expanding economy, coupled with an expanding world trade, our problems in the future will be to find the labour we need. No country has greater need for its people to work together as a team and such working together can only be done by co-operation and not by compulsion.
It is impossible, in the short time for a debate of this character, to deal with all the aspects of this complex problem. Therefore, I propose to deal with one or two specific points only. First, I should like to deal with those strikes for which Government action is almost impossible to find any real solution—that is, strikes and troubles which are deliberately fomented by Communists and others whose real objective is the destruction of our society, or, at least, the paralysis of its power.
No improvement in labour relations will alter the purpose of these mischief-makers. We have seen in the Report of Lord Cameron on the Briggs dispute how a small coterie of Communists, having no desire whatsoever to secure any sort of good relationship with the management or for the betterment of the men in the works, have as their sole objective the distruction of the Briggs organisation.
We have heard in this House evidence presented by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) of the same sort of activity in other parts of the country and there was the quite disgraceful television broadcast this week, when one of the shop stewards, Mr. McGree, of the Cammell Laird Company, stated quite categorically that it did not matter to him whether Cammell Laird's went bankrupt or not. To what extent actions of this character are indictable must be left to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but at least we must not hesitate to give the strongest possible publicity to the disruptive powers which this small band of Communists in this country possesses at the present time.
I want also to deal with the question of shop stewards. The term "shop steward" has in recent years had a connotation which has been not altogether desirable. Many shop stewards up and down the country are honest, decent men who have been elected by their fellow workers as being men who can genuinely


and sincerely look after their interests. Many shop stewards, however, are nothing more or less than militant Communists, whom I once described in this House as the fifth column in British industry.
By education and propaganda we must try to persuade trade unionists to take a greater interest in the affairs of their unions and to ensure that these Communist elements are not elected to positions of power where they can carry on their disruptive work.
It has, perhaps, been forgotten that the original position of the shop steward in industry was not to act as the liaison between management and the man on the floor, but he was the link between the man on the floor and the union. During the war, however, it was, naturally, convenient for management to have some close liaison with the workers and the power of the shop steward gradually grew.
After the war, the shop steward was not slow to take advantage of this newfound position and the unions themselves were very backward in putting any brake on the power of the shop stewards. And so we have today built up in British industry a shop steward movement which is now exercising a quite intolerable pressure upon industry and which, I am sure, responsible trade unions would like to see broken. This, however, is a matter with which the trade union leaders themselves can deal and is not a matter for Government action.
I want now to touch upon the annual wage claim, for that is what it has now become. Almost throughout the whole of British industry, once a year various industries put forward their application for a new wage claim. It has become part of the pattern of British industry.
This sort of thing cannot go on indefinitely without very serious consequences to the economy as a whole. In my judgment, we have reached a situation in which any further increases in wages must be linked directly to increased productivity or efficiency. There is nothing revolutionary in this suggestion, and it is not novel in this country, but let us, first, consider what goes on in America. Hon. Members may have listened to a very interesting broadcast recently on the Third Programme on this subject of the annual wage claim, a broadcast by Geoffrey Goodman, and I am indebted

to him for some of the figures I am going to quote.
The kind of long-term contract linking any increases in pay to the cost of living and to increased productivity, which, I am suggesting, should form part of the pattern of British industry, has for some time been a feature of American economic life. A recent survey made by the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics shows that 65 per cent. of American collective bargaining agreements are now for two years or more.
Those agreements generally have two prongs to them. The first is an escalator clause which moves up and down according to the cost of living. Obviously, if a man's wages are to move up and down simply as the cost of living moves up and down he has no incentive to do any better and the company has very little incentive to try to improve its own position, but if the workman has a vested interest in the efficiency of his company there is more likelihood of ensuring that, in due course, it will become more efficient. Therefore, there is a second prong to these agreements, and that relates entirely to productivity and is known as the "annual improvement factor", and is embodied in most of these long-term agreements.
In this country there are already agreements having a cost of living clause, notably for the building workers, in the steel industries, and in the boot and shoe and printing trades, and about 3 million workers are covered by agreements of this character. Ever since 1920 the boot and shoe industry has had national agreements lasting for two years, with a built-in cost of living sliding scale.
It is not without significance that in those very industries in this country there is to be found a record of industrial harmony with which there is nothing in any other of our industries to compare. That seems to show that the experience is a good one and would be beneficial to industry as a whole.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of the building workers, may I ask whether he is aware that despite that provision the building workers still find it necessary to put in for wage increases to cover the rising cost of living?

Mr. Cooper: These agreements are meant to cover just that situation, as the


cost of living moves. They take care of just these things.
I come now to what I think is possibly the most important aspect of the present situation and that is nation-wide bargaining that is to say, the combining of unions to deal on a national basis with the wage interests of a vast number of people employed by a number of undertakings in an industry, in this case the engineering industry.
It is interesting to note that the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions negotiate the wage rates of no fewer than 3 million workpeople employed in 20,000 firms. One has only to give that last figure to show just how unreal it is to expect a confederation of unions to negotiate arrangements which will work properly and equitably amongst 20,000 firms engaged in an industry.
In this case, the unions demanded a 10 per cent. increase and were to be satisfied with nothing else. The employers then said they could not give anything at all. It is possible that, considering the industry firm by firm and comparing one part of the industry with another, some firms could have provided that 10 per cent. increase. It is equally probable that the 10 per cent. demand could well-nigh cripple sonic firms and possibly put them out of business.
This is a sort of situation which obviously cannot be tolerated any longer. We have to remember the background of how these great confederations of unions were built up. It was during the pre-war years, in times of widespread unemployment, when it was a good thing, from the workers' point of view, to deal with the situation on a national basis.
In arguing, as I am attempting to do, that the national basis is not the way to deal with this matter, I exclude certain industries, notably the coal and electricity industries and probably the railways, which are more homogeneous and can, perhaps, be dealt with more efficiently on a national basis. However, we have to persuade the unions and the managements to give up part of their sovereignty. We have to persuade them to deal with this industry in particular on a much smaller basis than the national basis, almost, indeed, on the basis of firm by firm, rather than on this unrealistic national basis.
I have come to the conclusion that we have reached in our nation what, perhaps, may be described as the crossroads in labour relations. We in the Conservative Party, some years ago, produced a booklet which, we hoped, would point the way to the future of industry in this country, a booklet which we called "The Industrial Charter." I make no excuse for the fact that we have not been able as yet to see all the recommendations which we put forward in that document carried through. Indeed, we have not made very much progress with it, but it is the sort of document which, I believe, points the way we ought to go in the future. I do not believe that at this stage one political party producing a document of that sort is likely to get full support for it. The Conservative Party is not likely to get the support of the trade unions, and were the Labour Party to produce such a document it would not be likely to get the support of the employers' organisations.
Consequently, I believe that, as the situation is so serious to our whole future, the Government have to consider setting up a Select Committee which could inquire into the whole question of labour relations. I rule out a Royal Commission, because the time taken by a Royal Commission is generally much too long, and I do not believe that time is on our side. The Select Committee should see how we can fit the arrangements which we have at present to the times in which we live. I hope that it will be possible for something along these lines to be done very soon.
We must recognise throughout the country that we must work together for the common good. There is a belief in some quarters that the world owes us a living. The world does not owe us a living, but there is a very bright future for all of us if we can rid ourselves of the prejudices that blind our vision.

12.50 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I shall detain the House only a few minutes to make one or two comments on this problem, particularly with reference to the Report of the Court of Inquiry into the dispute at Briggs Motor Bodies Ltd., Dagenham, and some of the points made by Lord Cameron in that Report.
The most glaring thing throughout the Report, which should cause us most concern, is the greater emphasis than ever on the problem of particular groups of people obtaining power without responsibility. We in this country have always recognised that if we are to enjoy power we must also accept responsibility.
The Report shows the great danger of a group of men who, apparently, enjoy power without any organisation being able to exert any control over them. It is left to them alone to carry out the necessary responsibility that comes with the power given to them.
This is the basis of the problem about which many trade unionists have been worrying for a considerable time. I have suggested from time to time that this is something which should be tackled. The crux of the problem is the fact that the normal branch membership of a trade union is on a geographical basis. It has been so for many years. That has much to commend it, because it means that workers can go to a branch meeting held within a reasonable distance of their homes. Therefore, one is certain that if members want to attend a branch meeting they will make the effort.
In recent years, however, more and more people have tended to travel considerable distances to their place of employment. Large organisations, such as Briggs Motor Bodies, draw their workers from many places in the surrounding district. This fact is emphasised in the Cameron Report.
Many men employed in the same department may belong to the same union but, at the same time, they may belong to as many as 10 or 12 different branches. That means that these people in the shop freely elect one person to represent them as shop steward. The elected shop steward is not under the jurisdiction of any one branch. It would he impossible for him to report regularly to 10 or 12 branches and therefore, naturally, he reports to none. Normally, throughout industry the shop steward tries to carry out his job and to observe the rules of his union, but the difficulty is that all shop stewards do not behave in that way.
Men over whom no control is exercised by one particular branch are elected as shop stewards, with the result that a

new structure of power is building itself up and there is what is known as the national shop stewards' movement for the motor car industry and other industries, which exerts a terrific amount of power without apparent responsibility to anyone.
This is a problem which trade unions themselves have to solve. Some have recognised it and have based their branch membership not on a geographical basis, but on the basis of an industry. But they have come up against problems here and there with employers, because if branch membership is set up on an industrial basis it means that the members are no longer able to attend branch meetings.
In a number of cases the employers, realising the problem and knowing that trade unions are trying to put the matter right, have offered the use of a room in the works or canteen so that branch meetings can be held immediately work ends, whether once a fortnight or once a month. In this way members have greater opportunity to attend branch meetings than would be the case if the branch were on a geographical basis.
It means, in these circumstances, that not only can the normal business of the branch be carried out but the election of shop stewards can be proved to have been a fair one and the majority of members can freely elect their representative. Once that representative was elected he would know where his responsibility lay and the branch would have a considerable amount of control over him. Therefore, there would be no longer any need for him to join his fellow shop stewards to form a shop stewards' movement.
This is one of the ways in which stoppages of work could be prevented not only in the factory to which I have referred, but in many other works. I would warn those who feel that by legislative action we could make it necessary to have a strike ballot. When strikes were illegal under Socialist legislation, a huge number of man-hours were lost because union members then took part in unofficial strikes. We must recognise the changed circumstances and, whether as employers or employees, we must realise the problems and try and work out a solution together.
Wherever members of trade unions are fairly treated in this respect by their employer, they will be as happy as anyone


else to make certain that they are properly represented and that their representations will be made by a person who is within their control. If that is ensured, I am sure that we shall be able to solve a great number of industrial problems. Not only will industry not suffer loss of man-hours through strike action but trade unionists, by not taking part in strikes, will enjoy a better standard of living. Make no mistake, when a trade unionist takes part in a fortnight's strike to bring about a rise in wages, the money lost during that fortnight is far more than any rise obtained in wages over probably the next 12 or 18 months.
There are many lessons to be learned if we can forget our fixed ideas. We should forget the general idea that certain people say they are "anti" this or anti "that. Instead, we should all be "pro happy" industrial relations. If we work on that basis, we can look forward to a more peaceful future in industry and, what is far more important, to becoming a more prosperous nation.

1.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour said during the course of the recent strikes that when the dust had settled we would want to consider what lessons could be drawn from those disputes. Obviously, it is too early to do that properly yet, because the Courts of Inquiry which are looking into the two disputes have not yet reported. Nevertheless, I am sure it is valuable to have a discussion such as we have had this morning, short as it is, and I thank my hon. Friends for raising it and contributing to it.
I was particularly glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) drew attention to the good record which this country enjoys in labour relations compared with almost every other industrial country, because we do ourselves no good, either in our own eyes or in the eyes of the world, if we exaggerate the troubles we have. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend said, we can afford less than any other country to suffer disputes in this way. I am also glad that my hon. Friend made so clear his belief that compulsion is not the way out of our difficulties. I am sure he is

right, and I was glad he made that point at the outset.
There is a small minority—the wreckers, to whom my hon. Friend referred—who have an effect out of all proportion to their numbers. Those who work in industry object to their activities as much as anybody else in the country. There is no doubt that the only way to deal with them is by getting greater activity on the part of the rank and file of those workers in industry who object to them. If only this majority of the rank and file would attend branch meetings, and play an active part in their affairs, I am sure that the trouble would quickly be overcome. I must say frankly that I can see no other way of overcoming it.
Since the war, we have been trying to do in this country what has never been done before, namely, to achieve at one and the same time a combination of full employment, free collective bargaining as the method of fixing wages, and stability in the value of money. It is comparatively easy to have any two of these three things at the same time, but it is extremely difficult to have all three of them at once. In practice, we have succeeded in keeping full employment and free collective bargaining, but we have to admit that we have not achieved the third, namely, stability in the value of our money.
This country has not been alone either in facing this problem or in failing to solve it, and in an attempt to find the answer many people, both here and in other countries, have suggested that the system of free collective bargaining should be replaced, or at least substantially modified. There have been advocates of various forms of a national wages policy, which involves a greater or less degree of Government intervention in the process of wage fixing.
Some countries have actually tried to operate a national wages policy. I think it is interesting to see how they have got on. Holland and Sweden are perhaps the most talked of examples, but when we look at the statistics we find that in recent years the inflationary trends in those countries have been no more restrained than they have in ours.
So, whatever our difficulties may be, the experience available suggests that the systems tried in countries such as


Holland and Sweden work no better than the system of free collective bargaining to which we are accustomed and which, I think, reflects our natural way of thought and our belief in free institutions. Nevertheless—and this is why I am sure that my hon. Friend was right in raising this question today—the fact that we have pride in, and think it right to hold on to, our system of free collective bargaining does not mean that we should be complacent about the way our system works, or imagine that it could not be looked at and improved. If we adopt that attitude, the system will decay rather than continue to grow, and one cannot doubt that there is growing concern in the country at the moment about the way our industrial relations system is working.
Some of those who express this concern, and perhaps do so most loudly, advocate tackling the problem by legislation, whether it be for compulsory secret ballots or other devices. I am glad that both my hon. Friends this morning objected to that kind of policy. I do not think that such proposed remedies would in practice be effective and, moreover, I believe them to be wrong because they are superficial. To put it this way, they are trying to rub out the measle spots rather than curing the measles. They fail to take account of the real problems, and the real values, of a free industrial society.
We must be clear, however, that we would be making a great mistake if we were to assume that the present concern is limited to people who want to take that kind of action. We should pay heed to the fact that a growing number of people, who most genuinely believe in, and wish for the success of, our system of free collective bargaining are worried by recent developments.
It seems to me that the concern which is being felt is of two kinds, and I do not think that we ought to get them confused. First, there is the feeling that in the second half of this twentieth century we ought to be able to settle these matters peacefully and by negotiation, without resort to strikes or lockouts, which usually result in loss to everyone and must, in the end, be settled by agreement.
Secondly, there is growing dismay about our apparent inability to escape

from the wage price spiral, under which those who have increases in wages only benefit in real terms for a short time, whilst other members of the community are actually made worse off. There is also a growing feeling that we must find a way of containing wages increases within the bounds of extra production and efficiency, so that the real value of wage increases is maintained for those who get them, so that prices remain stable, and no damage is done to other sections of the community, particularly those who depend on pensions and fixed incomes.
It is genuine concerns such as these which are making thoughtful people of good will in these affairs more and more ask the kind of questions which my hon. Friend has asked today, namely, is it possible to find satisfactory ways of linking wage increases to productivity while not forgetting the rights and needs of workers—this is important—who, by the nature of their occupation, cannot have their pay directly based on output?
Again, is it possible, as is done in some countries, to make wage settlements operative for longer periods, perhaps, as my hon. Friend suggested, by introducing escalator clauses to take account of changes not only in the cost of living but also in productivity—what he called the annual improvement factor. Is it possible that in some cases the area of negotiation is too wide? Should we, for example, treat the engineering industry as a single unit when, as my hon. Friend said, there are within it such widely different types of production and such great differences in prosperity between one part of the industry and another?
And why is it that in some industries industrial relations work smoothly, so that there are practically no threats of strikes and the affairs of those industries hardly ever hit the headlines, whereas others are repeatedly in the news, with threats of yet another dispute? Is it the machinery which makes the difference between one industry and another, or is it a matter of the personalities involved?
These are the kind of questions which I cannot pretend to answer this morning, but which I am sure we are right to be talking about publicly and getting public opinion to concentrate upon. We should be mistaken to be dogmatic about the answers, or to imagine that the same


answers can apply over all industry. We have to look at them separately and seriously.
In a system of free industrial relations the answers must, in the end, be agreed by the two sides of industry, and we have a right to expect that the leaders of the two sides will get busy seeking to put right any defects which they can find. I, of course, speak for the Government, and people are saying to the Government, "You should do something about this." While, in the end, we must depend on the actions of the leaders of industry, I agree that the Government also have a responsibility, which they must, and will, accept.
The Government can neither direct nor compel in this matter, but, through the Ministry of Labour, they can, and should, try to guide. The question is how should this be done? My hon. Friend suggested this morning that there should be a comprehensive independent inquiry. He suggested a Select Committee—that may not be the only way he had in mind—and rejected a Royal Commission; but his main point was that, in whatever way it was done, there should be a comprehensive independent inquiry into the working of our industrial relations system.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to comment immediately on his suggestion. I do not need to tell him that my right lion, Friend the Minister of Labour will, of course, give it the most careful consideration. A good deal of our present machinery for industrial relations owes its origin to the Whitley Committee, which was appointed in 1916. That is forty years ago, and forty years is a long time to go without a new inquiry in the light of modern conditions. I repeat that my right hon. Friend will consider the suggestion which has been made.
But, of course, quite apart from any question of a new inquiry, it should be realised that the Ministry of Labour is doing its best all the time to bring together the two sides of industry. The effect of that should not be underestimated. From its earliest years the Ministry of Labour has tried to encourage a better general understanding through Whitley Councils or other joint machinery, and for many years employers and workers' representatives have sat together on the Ministry's local and national

advisory committees. At the highest level, our National Joint Advisory Council has sat regularly since the war years to consult and advise on general labour questions.
Lately, the N.J.A.C. has taken a new initiative. Last summer, the Minister of Labour initiated, through the N.J.A.C., an inquiry, industry by industry, into the efficient use of manpower. Each industry has been asked whether it has problems of this kind and, if so, to set up machinery to deal with them. So far, replies have been received from industries which represent about four-fifths of the labour force of the country. I am glad to report that many of those industries say that they have no problems of this sort. Others say that they have the machinery for settling them if they arise, or are in the process of setting up such machinery, and others say that they are actively considering doing so. Replies are still being sought from the remaining industries and those which have not yet got appropriate machinery are being asked to report again in due course.
This action of the National Joint Advisory Council represents a new approach to this problem which has never been made before. I am sure that it is the most practical way to get results, because this question of efficiency of output is part and parcel of the wages question which my hon. Friend raised this morning. It is certain that there is no room in modern conditions for restrictive practices on either side of industry. I think, however, that we must be clear about this. There is a big difference between restrictive labour practices and the restrictive practices of trade associations. The latter are concerned with the prices and conditions of the supply of goods and can be effectively dealt with by legislation. The former affect the working conditions of human beings.
Some of them are, indeed, reasonable arrangements, arising from genuine considerations of health and safety. Others are unreasonable and provide harmful impediments to production. It is, therefore, difficult to draw a dividing line between the reasonable and the unreasonable and it is certainly impossible to generalise. So each practice has to be looked at on its merits.
To do this we have to know a great deal about the technicalities and condi-


tions of the industry concerned. Therefore, the problem can only be tackled through the industry itself by people on a local level who really know the technicalities of the individual industry and practice. I wanted to put on record the stage that we had reached because, as I have said, it represents a new approach and because I think this is important. Not only is the subject important, but this inquiry is doing something else which I believe to be important, namely, getting the two sides of industry into the habit of talking and meeting together about problems other than wages. That is a very valuable thing to do. because I believe that industries, where that habit grows, will develop better industrial relations as the years go on.
Both my hon. Friends referred to the position of shop stewards. There is no doubt that shop stewards have in some cases succeeded in establishing themselves in, shall I say, an unduly strong position and this has had bad results. I think that what my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) had to say about the effect of the basis of union organisation in this matter, the geographical basis of organisation as opposed to the plant basis, was extremely interesting.
I believe that, as he said, the unions—whose business this must be—are thinking about these problems. But while there is no doubt that shop stewards have, in some cases, got into an unduly strong position, we must not leap to the conclusion that the shop steward system is wrong. Indeed, as my hon. Friend said, there are many factories which have responsible shop stewards and benefit from it. We must not allow the bad example to lead us into condemning the whole system.
The Report of the recent inquiry into the trouble at Messrs. Briggs illustrates another way in which the powers and machinery of the Ministry of Labour can and do guide the development of industrial relations. In our Industrial Court and our Industrial Disputes Tribunal, and in the highly experienced and responsible people we are able to call upon for Courts of Inquiry, we have a valuable resource of skill and wisdom which is helpful when it is brought to bear on problems about which the two sides of industry fail to agree. Moreover, long before disputes get to the stage which

need treatment of this kind, the Ministry's own conciliation officers are constantly assisting in bringing the two sides together and smoothing out troubles.
In the final resort, and, indeed, all the time, it is upon voluntary agreement in industry that we must depend for good industrial relations. Our own experience and that of other countries all goes to show that good relations cannot be enforced by laws and pains and penalties. Like everything best in this country, they must grow and become a tradition, and that takes time.
Perhaps the most important thing to realise is that this growth of good relations must start at the level of the individual factory. At this level, too, the Ministry of Labour is able to assist by its advice on problems of personnel management and labour relations through our Personnel Management Advisory Service. We have also taken the lead in urging a proper training of foremen in management techniques—another very important point in good relations—by our Training Within Industry Service, and in other ways.
Although we can and do help on a factory level, the real responsibility for leadership in the factory must inevitably rest with the management of each undertaking. I think that it is noteworthy that where the management of a company has, over a long period, made a conscious effort to inform and consult its workers about the why and wherefore of what is going on, responsible and good industrial relations are developed; and in the industries where the majority of firms pursue these policies, good leaders are thrown up and the industrial relations at national level in the industry work more constructively and smoothly.
That is the note on which I should like to end. I am sure that whatever inquiries we have and whatever changes may be instituted in the machinery of conducting our relations or in the scope of agreement—all important things—it is in the growth of good relations and good practices in each individual factory that the real way to progress lies.
If this debate, apart from all its other purposes, can provide one more opportunity for saying to each company in this country, "Do make a conscious effort to develop these good and responsible relations," it will have been well worth while.

TRADE WITH CHINA

1.20 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I desire to draw attention to the need for improving our trade with China. Last autumn I had an opportunity, with some colleagues on both sides of the House, of visiting that great and expanding nation. I spent some time in Manchuria, with Shenyang as my headquarters, in Pekin, Shanghai, Hankow and Canton, visiting industries, agricultural centres and other places of importance in the neighbourhood of those great cities. Everywhere we went the keynote was that of an expanding economy. In industry, agriculture, and commerce, China progresses with rapid steps.
Other nations are not blind to this depelopment, and so, today, China has markets in 68 countries with 21 intergovernmental trade agreements, and she is also penetrating the Middle East. Internally, her petroleum, iron, coal and farm products are all on the increase. Transport improves. Wages are rising. Schools and hospitals are being built, and there are great new housing schemes. Last year, £12,000 million was set aside for capital development in all its phases.
In 1924, the total British trade with China was £35 million. If we relate that to present-day prices, it represents not less than £100 million. Yet the latest returns put our total import and export trade with China at £23 million. In a market which has expanded almost beyond belief since 1924, our total trade is now less than a quarter in value of what it was then.
It will not be disputed that until 1949 Britain played a pioneering role in commercial and economic relations with China, even after she had ceased to be a leading country in the China trade. This was due not only to private enterprise, but to Government policy. As late as 1946 Sir Stafford Cripps thought it politic to appoint a mission:
To consider the best methods of developing trade between China and the United Kingdom … so as to provide a firm basis for future expansion.
Nobody regarded such a move as in any way remarkable at the time. The China trade, in addition to being traditionally

important for the United Kingdom, was essential to the prosperity of the Colonial Territories of Hong Kong and Malaya.
No echo of that is heard in expressions of public policy today. It would not be surprising if some of the big merchant houses which lost business and property in China after 1949 decided to write down the China trade to a fraction of its former importance. But it is not these who show indifference. It is the Government who see nothing alarming in the prospect of an 80 per cent. share in the industrialisation of the world's largest undeveloped area falling into the hands of the Eastern European bloc.
It is the Government, too, who think that it would not be helpful to issue a White Paper on the subject of the China trade. Recent Answers in Parliament make it clear that the present Administration believes that this country can afford, in this case, to let commercial policy be the handmaiden of short-term foreign policy. The Foreign Secretary, on 28th January, said:
… this is not solely a question of trade… there are much wider political considerations involved."—[CIFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January. 1957; Vol. 563, c. 672.]
The United Kingdom is not prepared to take the lead in dissociating itself from the rather petulant embargo policy enforced by the N.A.T.O. group since 1951, and it is thus left with no possibility of positive action save by means of exceptions in the more obviously absurd cases. In the Government's words, we permit trade "within the limitations of the exceptions procedure."
This leads to the ridiculous example which I have offered from the Floor of the House about the Bergin Company, in Glasgow. At present, diesel engines are going out in agricultural tractors to China to help in the production of food from the ground, but the same diesel engines cannot go out in China's fishing boats to help in the production of food from the sea. In one case they come under the exceptions rule, but in the other they do not. Why? No one, let alone the Government, has been able to tell me.
This is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Britain at present has no positive policy on trade with China. Her policy is to make exceptions her policy. While the Government have


been paying a lot of attention to some doubtful projects for exclusive trade areas in Europe, they have been dragging their feet over something which is much more to the point so far as our businessmen and industrialists are concerned.
China is not the only example of a large potential market in which British exporters have been placed under a handicap by the short-sighted policy of the Government and their inability to understand the need for trade promotion, but it is the largest and most rapidly developing, as well as being a part of the world in which British goods, particularly engineering goods, were traditional and enjoyed an unchallenged reputation for quality of workmanship.
For centuries, China was a most important market for British goods. Even members of the present Government cannot have forgotten the hundreds of millions of pounds worth of trade that flowed through Hong Kong in the early years of the present régime in China, before the embargo was imposed in 1951. As long ago as 1953, the Governor of Hong Kong, Sir Alexander Grantham, said publicly that he considered the potential for trade with China "immense", and likened the embargo to a knife cutting, the throat of this British Colony, a knife handed out by the hon. Gentleman opposite and his associates in the Government.
Sir Alexander also said that the United Kingdom and Hong Kong would be among the first to benefit from the lifting of the embargo, which had certainly been effective so far as Hong Kong was concerned, for it had done enormous damage to the Colony's economy, but was quite ineffective in retarding Chinese industrialisation or in reducing her war potential.
Similar opinions to this have repeatedly been voiced during the six years that the embargo has been in existence, by the chairman of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, the Federation of British Industries, chambers of commerce in this country and in many parts of the Commonwealth, and representatives of industrial constituencies on both sides of the House.
The Government, however, are still treating the vital question of this trade as a part of some obscure and tawdry poli-

tical bargain. It is not clear who is gaining from the bargain, but British industry is certainly losing. Britain has not only lost her place as the leading exporter to China, but is now a long way down the list, below even countries like Switzerland, which are supplying power stations while British firms are prevented from sending even a small diesel engine or a few bearings for sugar mills which this country had supplied before the war.
The Government, through the mouth of the President of the Board of Trade himself, have now revealed the reason for their inaction. The right hon. Gentleman came to the House on Tuesday determined to belittle the prospects of greater trade with China and unembarrassed by any facts about the subject. A Government supporter, the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) described the situation as "something of a scandal." It is certainly a scandal that the Board of Trade, which is in charge of the country's commercial affairs, should be utterly misinformed not only about the trade that could be done, but about that which is actually going on now.
The right hon. Gentleman said that China trade is in balance with us. It is not. I ask the Joint Under-Secretary to tell us which is correct. My assertion is that it is not in balance. The Chinese have a persistent favourable balance even in their direct trade with this country. But the Board of Trade should not need to be reminded by hon. Members that it is misleading to look at the figures for direct trade in isolation from those for British dependencies.
Hong Kong imports from China every year nearly £60 million worth of goods more than she sells to her. Malaya imports £12 million more than she sells. In addition to what she earns in the sterling area, China is adding to her surplus as a result of trade with Japan and various other countries, which is conducted in sterling. The most authoritative estimates put her surplus of sterling on current account at around £100 million per annum. This, as the Economist pointed out a few days ago, makes China the sterling area's principal short-term creditor.
When the Government talk about China needing a loan from Russia before she can do more trade with this country,


they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), who himself is a business man, trying to carry on business with China in relation to the great scheme of irrigation now going on in the Yellow River, said in the House on Tuesday, they are speaking in a vacuum. It would not be unfair to say that that is an atmosphere, or lack of atmosphere, with which they are fairly familiar.
It is worth looking carefully at the exports and imports between China and Hong Kong. In 1950, they were £140 million; in 1951, £152 million. Then came the special China embargo and, while imports from China to Hong Kong increased to £65 million, exports sank to £8.3 million, making a total trade of £73 million, and so keeping up the great sterling balances that China holds in Hong Kong today.
What is being done with that large sterling surplus? China gave a loan of several millions to Hungary a few months ago. She bought Swiss francs and loaned them to Egypt when we had blocked Egypt's sterling balances—the hardest currency in Europe was given to Egypt for her support, far greater than the promised help of 250,000 soldiers the Chinese threatened to send during the Suez episode. Those are examples of the use to which she puts this sterling.
Japan is a potential outlet for the use of that sterling. I quote from The Times of yesterday:
The Kishi Government intends to give mare positive support to Japanese trade with China than its predecessors. It is contemplating direct assistance to three organisations sponsoring greater commercial intercourse… Moreover, many facilities, short of diplomatic privileges, will be granted to the Chinese trade mission which is expected to be established in Tokyo.
So Japan is conducting a big drive at the moment to extend her trade with China which is in surplus with her.
If China wants to buy more, she can use sterling, which, in the long run, comes from us, to buy Japanese machinery at our expense. That is the road along which unemployment for industrial workers in Great Britain lies. The Government are actually shaping the tools of our own destruction. If exports are to be increased, then all potential markets

must be open to us and that should be made clear to the American Government.
It is far better that China should use her surplus sterling to buy our goods than that she should employ it against us. After all, in extending recognition to the Chinese Government the Labour Government took many kicks. Is it not time that the Tory Government were collecting some of the ha'pennies which are said to go with the kicks?
I want to put one or two questions to the Joint Under-Secretary and I hope that he has come here armed to answer them. Is it Government policy that we should relinquish control of large sums of sterling every year, as we have done, or are we subject in this matter, as in so many other things, to this improper liaison in Paris known as Cocom? Surely it is very unfair to the fair name of Paris that all the illicit international connections should be carried on in that beautiful city.
Cocom has two aspects. The first is that it is a device for passing the time without any action. Although it is now clear that the real decisions on Britain's trade with the East are being left to America, the Government still insist on going through an interminable rigmarole with 14 other countries in Paris every time it is their duty to come to decisions about British trade. There is a second aspect of Cocom. It is a possible leak—and this has been frequently alleged—of British business intelligence to our commercial rivals.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs informed us yesterday that we have received the American verdict on our trading future in the Far East. What are its terms? Will the Joint Under-Secretary tell us something about them? Must they be referred to Paris, and months and months be spent discussing them? Are the limits placed on our trade clearly defined? If there are relaxations, what have we yielded in return?
I do not want to provoke any anti-American attitude in this. I am looking at it purely from the point of view of Britain and Britain's interests. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will deal with the question from that aspect and give us answers which are not only in the short-term but also in the long-term interests of the nation.

1.40 p.m.

Mr. William Teeling: I have listened with fascination to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin). Fortunately, I remember my history in this affair, and I must say that he has left out a good deal. He referred to Sir Stafford Cripps, in 1946, making studies about future trade with China, but he did not mention that that was the China of Chiang Kai-shek, which was at the time our ally. He had fought with us during the war and was in close touch with America, from where dollars also came.
I remember that in 1947 Lord Attlee sent out a delegation to Chiang Kai-shek, led by Lord Ammon, and I went with that delegation. I remember how anxious they were to develop trade, but later came the revolution of Red China and Chiang Kai-shek went to Formosa. In 1950, the China Association here in London put very great pressure on the Foreign Office and Mr. Bevin, I think rather unwillingly, finally agreed to recognise Red China although Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa not only did not then but have not since recognised Red China.
Chiang Kai-shek moved into Formosa, where there are today about ten million people with about 300 million dollars a year from the United States, but the hon. Gentleman did not even refer to the possibility of trade with them or to the fact that in Hong Kong nobody seems to think about that. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs; I cannot think why. There is no reason not to trade with them. They are perfectly friendly towards us in every way, and I can hardly believe that Red China really is.
I ask the Labour Party: what is their attitude on this matter? We know that Red China, like Red Russia, is not entirely a country of forced labour, but we know that the authorities can, and do, force the people to work in whatever way they want. Yet we are now being asked to make it possible to send to that country all sorts of equipment with all sorts of possibilities for them to develop industries which will be in competition with our own one day and which, one can truly say, will be operated by slave labour. What is the answer to that?

Mr. Rankin: The equipment is going there now.

Mr. Teeling: Mainly from Russia.

Mr. Rankin: West Germany.

Mr. Teeling: We should have some principles.
Only last Tuesday I asked the President of the Board of Trade to state the exact figures. We heard them given in millions by the hon. Gentleman, but in percentages they do not seem as vast, and show that in 1936 trade with China was only 1·8 per cent. of all our trade with the outside world, leaving out the Dominions. In 1946, when we were at our highest, getting more trade than before the war, with China and doing all we could—I think that even the China Association will admit that—they were only 0·9 per cent. Now the figure is down to 0·6 per cent.
The President of the Board of Trade also told us:
 In present circumstances. I see no advantage in attempting to make a trade agreement with China.
He also said:
 It is a fact that Chinese trade is in balance with us, and as far as I can see, unless China sells less to Russia or gets a credit from Russia, there is very little chance of any substantial expansion."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th April. 1957; Vol. 568, c 1725–6.]
Therefore, I should like to ask what is the reason for so much pressure to get this tiny amount of trade? Why should we try to develop it when we know that it will alienate people in so many areas of South-East Asia who are anti-Red? Is this an effort to help the Red countries, to alienate the U.S.A., or is it a genuine effort to help British industry?

1.43 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) asked what was the attitude of the Labour Party on this issue. It is exactly the same as that of the Federation of British Industries. We are in favour of doing trade wherever we profitably can, unless there is some overwhelming political argument against it. I believe that in 1951, in the conditions of the Korean War and the United Nations decision, there was a case for an embargo; but it seems to me that it has been totally indefensible ever since 1953, when the Korean armistice was signed. So far as I can see, it is four years out of date.
Apart from the hon. Member for Pavilion—and even he may reconsider his view—there is almost nobody left in the country who, independently of United States opinion, would wish the embargo to continue in its present form. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) put the whole case. There is very little time; therefore, I will say only this. The Prime Minister, as soon as he came back from Bermuda, promised to make a statement on the matter—I think he said very shortly. I hope that we may have an assurance that it will be made at least by the end of the month.
I hope that the Minister will not today, as did the President of the Board of Trade, a few days earlier, think it necessary to play out time for this further week or two by thinking of all sorts of reasons for continuing the embargo indefinitely.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I hope that the Minister will deal with the argument of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) that trade policy should be governed by questions of general political discrimination. This is an extraordinary argument which, when considered on a wide background, raises many interesting questions, including that of the colour bar. How far would he wish to carry such an argument?
For good or ill, the Government recognise the existence of the People's Republic of China. We are arguing that there is no reason why our trade policy with that country should be hampered in the way it is. Twelve months ago—to be precise, on 11th April, 1956—the then Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, in answers to Questions, said:
Consultations are proceeding and it is hoped that the China Committee "—
that is, the China Committee of the Paris Consultative Group—
 will shortly be convened to discuss this subject.
that is, the subject of reducing the embargo on trade with China.
Later he said:
I am well aware of the considerations in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and in the mind of the House on this matter. We are consulting with our Allies on this point—they are fully aware of our point of view—

and I hope that some further satisfaction and, possibly, relaxation of the list will emerge from the review to be conducted by the China Committee "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1956; Vol. 551, c. 201–2.]
Since 11th April of last year, when the Minister of State made that statement, there have been, we are told, 47 meetings of the Paris Consultative Group which is the machinery for co-ordinating the policies of the Western Powers in their trading relations with China. Nothing, so far, has been forthcoming despite the promise made by the then Minister of State about relaxation of the list.
This is a time for firm decision. Here is an example of vacillation. Of course, we all believe that there should be consultations with our friends and allies, but there is a limit to the process of consultation. If there are basic disagreements on policy, let those disagreements be declared and let Her Majesty's Government have the courage to make a decision. Having taken certain lunatic decisions, such as those about the hydrogen bomb, at least let them be prepared to make a sane and sensible decision about trade with other countries.
We are not at war with China. We recognise them diplomatically. There are no reasons such as there were during the Korean War for not trading. We need this trade; we need more exports; we need new exports which can provide employment for many of those who will be made redundant by the run-down in arms contracts. Let the Foreign Office take its courage in its hands and declare a decision now.

1.49 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey): We have listened to a most extraordinary speech by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin). He managed throughout the whole of it to make a speech about this situation and never once to refer to the Korean War or the results of that war upon policy.
It was fortunate that the right hon. Member for Battersea. North (Mr. Jay) came to the rescue of his hon. Friend, as I have no doubt he regularly has to on other occasions.

Mr. Rankin: Ours is a co-ordinating committee.

Mr. Harvey: The co-ordination seems to have been about as effective as it has been on other issues in recent days; but I will leave that point. The right hon. Member came to the rescue, because his hon. Friend referred to an "obscene and tawdry political bargain."

Mr. Rankin: "Obscure" I said.

Mr. Harvey: Then I misjudged the hon. Gentleman.
He referred to an obscure political bargain, which, however, was made by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross), who was, at that time. President of the Board of Trade in the Labour Government. I congratulate the hon. Member for Govan on joining the ranks of the commercial capitalists, in that he has been advocating the extraordinary doctrine that commercial trade should take precedence over political considerations. That is a doctrine which I believe the right hon. Member for Battersea. North and his colleagues have regularly condemned.
Her Majesty's Government have to pay particular attention to the political aspect of this situation, and, in so doing, to the political aspects in which are involved the good relations which exist between this country and the United States of America. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. At one time, when it suits their book and they think it is popular, they come out firmly for a pro-American policy.

Mr. Rankin: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us where China is getting her dollars?

Mr. Harvey: Not from the United States.

Mr. Rankin: Oh.

Mr. Harvey: Oh, no. Let us be clear about it. I shall deal in a moment with some of the allegations made about the China trade. At one moment hon. Gentlemen are accusing us of not going along with the United States and the next they are complaining because we do go along with the United States.

Mr. Swingler: In consultation.

Mr. Harvey: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of consultation.
All this relates to the Bermuda Conference. It is quite untrue that Her Majesty's Government have been obscure in this matter. There has been very close consultation about China trade, as the Foreign Secretary stated only the other day. The position is clear. We raised this matter at Bermuda, and we clearly stated, in no uncertain terms, that we considered that the existence of two sets of controls, one for the Soviet Union and one for China, did not make sense. That was done, and everybody knows it.
Let us clearly understand that if there is mutual consultation and if we are to go along together with the United States and not to "go it alone" in the interests of commerce of all classes—which I understand to be the attitude of the former chairman of the I.L.P. in Glasgow, but that is another matter—we must take into consideration the interests, attitude and emotions of our allies. The emotions play their part in politics.

Mr. Swingler: Surely the Minister realises that consultation did not start at Bermuda, but has been going on for more than 12 months. The Americans are represented on the Paris Group, and for more than 12 months the Foreign Office has been declaring that consultations have been going on.

Mr. Harvey: There is no objection to having consultation. The important thing is to reach a conclusion. We have already said that we believe the time has come to reach that conclusion. There is no argument between us on that point. We must not condemn consultation because it is sometimes necessary to go on with it for quite a long time. No hon. Member would dispute that. It was the purpose of Bermuda to settle major points of difference between us.
We went to Bermuda and stated our case clearly to the United States of America. If we are to go along with our friends we must take their point of view into consideration just as it is necessary for them to pay attention to ours. There is give and take in these matters. The United States of America, unlike the hon. Member for Govan, have not forgotten the Korean War and the part they played in it, or the very serious world conflagration which was avoided by it. We do not forget the causes of that conflagration in the first place.
The United States of America believe that the embargo on China trade should be maintained. As a result of our discussions we have told them that we think that there should be relaxation in the China controls to bring the two forms of control—with the Soviet Union and China—into line with each other. It is our intention to take that course and to reach an agreement between the United States of America and ourselves on the taking of it. We believe that to be a reasonable course of action.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman now stating that the Government have made up their mind to follow the course of bringing the China embargo into line with that on Russia, and that they are going on with that course and hope that America will agree?

Mr. Harvey: We believe that the principle of bringing the two into line should be followed. We have asked the United States for their views in this matter. We clearly stated to them at Bermuda that we considered that this was a reasonable thing to do, and that, although we accepted very fully the reservations they had on this subject, we asked them to give us their views. Those views will, we expect, be conveyed to us in the near future.

Mr. Rankin: What if their views do not harmonise with those expressed by the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Harvey: That is a matter for Her Majesty's Government to consider in detail. There is nothing secret about this. It has already been stated. We think that, in principle, an operation should be undertaken to bring the two lists as nearly into line as possible. That is our position. If we are to go along with another country in a policy of this sort it is desirable to have the fullest consultations with them, and that we have promised to do.
We have to balance, as the hon. Member for Govan does not seem prepared to do, our export trade against political considerations. He was prepared only to consider the interests of commercial trade. [Interruption.] I believe that the hon. Gentleman said "Not at all," but the whole of his speech was entirely devoted to commercial considerations, which was.

no doubt, a very interesting exercise on his part. I am sure that the commercial interests concerned will be very grateful to him for what he has done. We have to balance the political aspects of this matter and we are doing it in consultation with the United States of America.
Now I want to deal with one or two points—

Mr. Jay: How soon does the hon. Gentleman expect a conclusion to be reached? Can we have an assurance that the Prime Minister will make a statement, at least during the present month?

Mr. Harvey: It is not for me to make a statement on the time factor on behalf of the Prime Minister. I am sure that when the right hon. Gentleman was in a similar position to mine, he would not have done so about his own Prime Minister.

Mr. Jay: It is the Minister's present hope that that will be done?

Mr. Harvey: Yes; there is nothing wrong with that. That is what I am saying. There will be a statement on this position before very long. That has already been stated, but I shall not give a time factor.
The hon. Member for Govan totally disregarded the fact that in our dealings with China we have made considerable use of the exceptions procedure. That should he borne in mind by those who feel that we have over-considered the political aspect.
I want to reply to the remarks that have been made about the consultative group. It is untrue that this is a sort of Star Chamber and that consultations have been useless or secretive in an adverse way. It has been a most useful advisory committee, in that a great deal has been done and many points of agreement have been reached.
There is some suggestion that United Kingdom traders have been totally disadvantaged against other nations. That is untrue. United Kingdom traders have been in exactly the same position vis-à-vis the trade with China as traders of other countries who subscribed to this agreement, and that is a very considerable number.
Let me now sum up exactly how we stand in this matter. We will do all we


can to go along with the point of view of our close allies the United States. We have put to them our view in this particular respect. Frankly, we do not entirely share their intepretation of the working of these controls. We must reserve our own right to act in this matter according to the economic interests of this country.
We have to balance and consider the economic interests of our traders, who make a great contribution—and there is no question about this—in relation to our national well-being, and, at the same time, we must weigh up our political obligations to our friends and to the security of the free world, which, I think, was something which rather escaped the arguments of the hon. Member for Govan in putting forward his highly commercialised case. The decision which we shall ultimately make will be based upon a clear balance of those considerations.

MEDICAL PRACTICES (COMPENSATION)

2.1 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The House will be aware that when the National Health Service was instituted arrangements were made to compensate medical practitioners for the right which, under the National Health Service Act, they lost of selling their practices, either upon retirement or before. Normally, a medical practitioner receives compensation for the loss of that right when he eventually retires from practice, but there are certain provisions in the regulations which have been made under the Act, and also Ministerial assurances, mitigating that rule and providing for earlier payment of that compensation.
The particular mitigation of that rule to which I am now referring is contained in paragraph 262 of the Handbook for General Medical Practitioners published by the Ministry of Health, and the operative words read as follows:
…where doctors have onerous loans outstanding which were raised for the purchase of their practices, or where an elderly doctor or one whose health is failing finds it necessary to take a partner in order to prevent the complete disintegration of his practice,
early payment may be made.
In relation to that paragraph, I was approached in December last year on

behalf of a medical practitioner in my constituency whose case I then raised with the Ministry of Health. This practitioner had been in active practice and in good health until he suffered two attacks of virus pneumonia in June and October of last year. At the time of the first attack in June, when, of course, he was unable to attend to his practice, he obtained the services of another doctor, a locum tenens, and that doctor remained with him for a couple of months until his health improved sufficiently for him to be able to carry on again in practice. Almost immediately, within a matter of weeks. he had a second attack of virus pneumonia, and in consequence was again unable to attend to his practice. He was lucky enough to be able to secure again immediately the services of the same locum.
Fortunately, the other doctor who came in to assist him was extremely helpful and acceptable in my constituent's practice, and that was particularly fortunate because my constituent, as a result of the second attack of pneumonia, became permanently unable to carry on his medical practice alone; that is to say, he is and will remain unable to give the whole of his time to his practice—on medical advice—and he will not be able to make night calls, etc.
In those circumstances, he was fortunately able to arrange that this colleague who had come as locum tenens should remain with him in partnership, and that arrangement was made and has been carried into effect. The consequence of his good fortune in immediately securing someone to assist him at the time of his first illness, and again in promptly securing the services of that gentleman at the time of his second illness, and of being able to arrange for him to stay permanently in partnership, was that my constituent's practice did not in fact suffer as it would have done had he not been able to secure anyone's services.
In consequence of his making that partnership arrangement, certain expenses in relation to accommodation, both residential and surgical, had to be incurred, and onerous loans were in fact undertaken by him. In respect of these, he made an application to the Ministry of Health in December last, and that application I commended to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the


Ministry. Unfortunately, his application was unsuccessful, and I was informed that two reasons were given as to why it was unsuccessful. The first was that from 1950 to 1956, his National Health Service list increased progressively from about 1,400 to about 2,450 patients. The second reason given to me was that he had described himself as being actively engaged in the practice, that being a declaration which a medical practitioner in the National Health Service has to make if he is to secure the full remuneration which the present scales allow.
As to the first reason, I pointed out to the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in a letter on 14th January, that an increase in my constituent's practice between 1950 and 1956 was not very relevant to the question of the damage which his practice had been caused by two illnesses in June and October last year. It was no part of my constituent's case or of mine that his practice had been declining before those illnesses occurred; quite the contrary. He had been in active and successful practice, and the sole reason for his application in December was the disastrous effect which his two illnesses would have had upon his practice but for the partnership arrangement.
As for the second reason, it will be obvious that a medical practice is widely different from other forms of activity in that it quite easily happens that a medical practitioner is not able to carry an unlimited liability. It is possible that with the progressive advance of age a doctor may prefer to cut his list of patients from 2,500 to 1,500 in order to reduce his general level of activity and the demand made upon him, but when a doctor is so injured by illness that he can only devote half his time to his practice and, for example, cannot go out at night, he cannot carry on a practice at all.
He cannot say to his National Health Service patients, "I am only available between the hours of nine in the morning and six at night. If you are ill during the night I cannot come to you," or, "I cannot come at weekends". If he is in that position, he can remain in active practice only in a partnership or a group practice. He faces the total disintegration of his practice unless, to use the words in paragraph 262, he then goes into partnership with someone who is in a

different state of health and probably of a very different age, as in this case.
In consequence, I saw my hon. Friend —who has been most helpful and sympathetic throughout—and, in view of this refusal, I asked him whether he could tell me in what sort of circumstances an early payment of compensation under paragraph 262 might be made. It seems to me one could scarcely imagine clearer or stronger circumstances than those of my constituent.
I should not have raised this matter on the Adjournment had it not been for the general interest and significance of the question. My hon. Friend replied to me on 19th March, saying:
 Paragraph 262 of the Handbook for Medical Practitioners owes its origin to discussions held in 1953 with the British Medical Association, who were subsequently informed that the Department was willing to consider sympathetically advance payments of compensation in 'individual cases of hardship where an elderly doctor or one whose health is failing finds it necessary to take a partner in order to prevent the complete disintegration of his practice'…
Then my hon. Friend added—this is what has prompted me to raise this matter on the Adjournment:
 As was expected, however, extremely few applications on these grounds have been received and none has been sufficiently strong to justify an advance payment 
The effect is that under that paragraph no single case has, over a period of nearly four years, been held to justify an advance payment of compensation.
I cannot but be extremely surprised to receive that information. The letter then sets out the considerations which would influence the Ministry in considering such an application, and states:
 Before regarding a payment as justified, we …"—
that is, the Ministry—
expect factual evidence that the practice was rapidly declining due to the ill health… of the doctor.
That means, in effect, that in order to save the ship one must let it sink first.
Paragraph 262 refers to a doctor
… whose health is failing finds it necessary to take a partner in order to prevent the complete disintegration of his practice…
According to the letter from my hon. Friend, no payment will be made under that paragraph in advance of the doctor's retirement. Money held awaiting his retirement will not be paid until he can


prove that his practice has already undergone a rapid decline due to his ill health. Therefore, if he has available a suitable locum whom he can get immediately and who will prevent any disastrous consequences to his practice through his illness, and uses him, he disentitles himself to make this claim under paragraph 262.
On the other hand, he may say to that man, "I do not want you now, but I should like you to come in two months' time, or six weeks' time" and during that six weeks or two months his practice, in consequence of his state of health and inability to look after his patients, may begin to collapse in ruins. One wonders what will happen to the patients meanwhile. Then, if he brought in his locum tenens, he would have the sort of evidence which might entitle him to payment under that paragraph. But my hon. Friend stated:
 We would not consider a payment to be justified, however, if it appeared that the doctor could reasonably carry on the practice alone, albeit a reduced practice with a correspondingly reduced income.
On that point I repeat that in the case of illness he would not be faced with the possibility of carrying on a reduced practice with a reduced income, but with a situation in which his medical practice could not be carried on conscientiously at all, unless it were carried on in a partnership.
I submit to the House and to my hon. Friend. of whose interest in this subject I know, that paragraph 262, which uses the words, "to prevent the disintegration", if interpreted in the way put forward in the letter—which in practice has meant that no one has ever benefited —is not a fulfilment of the undertaking, the assurance, which was given in writing to the British Medical Association in 1953, that
The Minister will sympathetically consider any individual case of a doctor who through ill health has to take in a partner to prevent the complete disintegration of his practice.
Secondly, it is misleading to practitioners if they read that paragraph as it stands with the words "to prevent" and subsequently are told when they apply under it that what it really means is that it only if their practice has already got well on the way to disintegration that they may have a case.
Finally, I put to my hon. Friend and the House the view that this interpretation is not only misleading and not a fulfilment of the undertaking, but also on its merits it is wrong. I submit that it is not a good interpretation of the words of the paragraph which say "to prevent" and it is not right on its general merits, for the reasons which I have given. If a practitioner is fortunate enough to be able to take immediate action to prevent the disintegration of his practice, he ought to be able to do so, and should do so. He should not in any way thereby prejudice his right to make an application to the Minister under paragraph 262.
I do not think I can usefully add any comment or argument to what I think is a clear and simple logical issue. I hope that upon consideration of it my hon. Friend will he able to tell the House that a change will be made, either in the wording of the paragraph or—better still—in the interpretation of it which is at present used.

2.19 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) for the very moderate and temperate way in which he has put this case on a matter about which I know he has very strong feelings. He has sketched in a good deal of the general background, which will enable me to spare the House some of the rather complicated details. He has dealt with both the general issue of early payment of compensation for loss of goodwill, and also with a particular case affecting one of his constituents, to whom I will refer as Dr. X.
The background to the general issue is that Sections 35 and 36 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, prohibited the sale of medical practices and laid down a basis of compensation, the total sum for which was fixed at £66 million. Section 36 (3) provided that compensation should not be paid until the retirement or earlier death of the doctor concerned. As my hon. Friend mentioned, a proviso to this subsection which read:
 except in such circumstances as may be prescribed 


was inserted in order to meet the circumstances of those doctors who had outstanding onerous loans incurred for the purchase of the goodwill of their practices, and I will revert to that proviso in a moment.
The total number of claims for England and Wales was about 15,000 of which over 11,000 are now outstanding. The total amount so far paid out is £21 million, including £8 million paid out by way of advance payments made on those grounds of hardship to which I have already referred. These payments are normally made where doctors have outstanding loans incurred for the purchase of goodwill, and, on the whole, the Department has been very generous in its interpretation of this provision.
In addition, as a result of representations made from the medical profession, in 1953, it was agreed to extend the proviso "except in such circumstances" in Section 36 (3, c) to make advances of compensation in the particular circumstances to which my hon. Friend has referred, where a doctor has found it necessary to take a partner in order to prevent the complete disintegration of his practice. I think that this proviso and these arrangements were entered into with some knowledge on the side of the Department that in fact there would not be many such cases. The agreement was entered into in order that machinery should be ready to alleviate any cases of hardship which might arise.
As my hon. Friend said, no claims have in fact been paid out under this proviso, but no case has so far been found to justify payment under this heading. It may interest the House to know that there have been only three applications in the course of four years. I would also add that no complaints have been received from representatives of the profession of any dissatisfaction with these decisions. It is obvious that individuals may feel it, but there has been no widespread feeling that there has been a failure to do justice.
If it seems surprising that no payments have been made, the reason why should be remembered. As compensation is made for the loss of the right to sell the goodwill, the real test for advance payments under the proviso is whether, in the days before the Health Service, a doctor would have sold his goodwill to meet ex-

penditure which is now alleged to involve hardship. He would obviously have done so only in very exceptional circumstances, as he would be parting with his means of livelihood.
It follows from this that we cannot use this proviso to make advances to enable doctors to buy houses or cars, to equip their surgeries, or whatever the particular need may be. To meet the needs which cannot be covered by this proviso other means are available which do not concern my Department and with which I need not bother to give the House many details. It is perhaps of interest, and also relevant to the case, however, that no fewer than nearly 1,400 doctors have borrowed money upon the security of the compensation ultimately payable to them, and that the amount involved is £4½ million.
I now come to the particular case about which my hon. Friend and I have been in correspondence. Dr. X made his request for immediate compensation on 4th December, 1956. He gave five different grounds, the first of which was the one to which my hon. Friend has referred, namely, that his age and ill-health had compelled him to take a partner to prevent the complete disintegration of his practice, and the four other reasons were, the need to buy a house for his partner, at a cost of £3,750; the need to adapt and equip surgery premises in the house, at a cost of between £600 and £1,000; the inability to meet these costs because he had only 2,400 National Health Service patients, and his share had been halved by the introduction of a partner, and, lastly, lack of capital.
We could not in any case accept any of those reasons except the first, which is the one covered by the wording in the handbook, namely, to prevent the complete disintegration of his practice, since, as I have said, compensation is for the loss of the right to sell the goodwill of a practice, and a doctor obviously could not have sold his goodwill in order to buy a house, whether for himself or a partner, or to adapt and equip a surgery.
As to the complete disintegration of his practice, some facts are definitely very relevant. My hon. Friend has referred to the dates of illness and has said that the figures of growth of the practice between 1951 and 1956 are not relevant. But this is not the first time


that a claim has been made upon the ground of ill-health. Dr. X made a claim in 1951, at a time when the number of his patients was 1,583. By 1st July, 1956 — just before he again made a claim—they had risen to 2,381.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend will agree that the first claim was made in respect of a motor car accident, from which the doctor made a fortunate recovery.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Yes, but I wanted to remind my hon. Friend that this was not the first time that a claim had been made.
On 1st January, 1957—just after he had made the new claim—the number of his patients had risen to 2,424, and during the last quarter—while my hon. Friend and I have been in correspondence upon the subject—there has been a further increase, to 2,489, as I am sure my hon. Friend will be glad to learn. This is on the doctor's own list, and not the partner's.
Whatever these figures show, they cannot in any way be interpreted as complete disintegration, nor, as has been alleged, do they support the contention that his illness would result in a permanent decrease in his capacity for work. The figures which I have given with regard to his practice do not include those of the doctor with whom he is working.
Under normal circumstances of a partnership, two partners would be able to receive extra payment upon the notional list basis because of the loading between 500 and 1,500. But Dr. X's application to receive extra payment has been rejected by the Executive Council on the ground that the arrangement he has come to with another doctor is not in fact a bona fide partnership, and that the other doctor concerned might be considered to be engaged more in the capacity of an assistant than a partner. In fact, he has his own list.
It is for those reasons that we have been quite unable to accept this claim, but my hon. Friend also went on to criticise the wording of the handbook. I note what he says, but I think that from the evidence I have already given it is fair to say that any misunderstanding which may have arisen from the wording is certainly not widespread. I will, however, consider his remarks and representations, and will see whether any better

wording can be found. Frankly, I rather doubt it. Of course, before any changes are made, we would, in any case, have to consult representatives of the profession.

B.B.C. (SOUND BROADCASTING)

2.30 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, my request to Mr. Speaker for an allocation of time this afternoon arose directly from a Press statement put out by the B.B.C. on 8th April. First of all, I should like very briefly to review the events which led up to that statement.
On 31st January, the B.B.C. announced, rather out of the blue, that it was reviewing the whole system of sound broadcasting. As soon as that statement was made, a number of rumours began to circulate, and many of them appeared to emanate from Broadcasting House itself. The two most persistent rumours were that the Home Service and the Light Programme were to be amalgamated, to some extent at least; and that the Third Programme was to be eliminated altogether.
These rumours produced an immediate reaction, and, quite spontaneously, the Third Programme Defence Society sprang up. A single announcement in the personal column of The Times produced over 5,000 replies, which I think the House will agree was quite a remarkable result. Together with right hon. and hon. Friends, and indeed with hon. Members of all parties in the House, I put down on the Order Paper a Motion to the effect that this House would regret the passing of the B.B.C. Third Programme. That Motion has been signed by 177 hon. Members.
I asked a question of the Assistant Postmaster-General on the subject on 27th March, and received from him a somewhat non-committal reply, the burden of which was that we should wait and see what the results of the B.B.C. review produced. There were also many letters written to the Press, deploring the threat to the Third Programme in particular. I think, too, that hon. Members have probably been surprised at the number of letters they have received from their constituents about this.
So we come to the B.B.C. Press statement which the Daily Telegraph has described as vague and muddled. The timing of the announcement hardly suggests that the Corporation wanted the maximum publicity for its proposals, because it was released at 4.30 p.m. on a Monday—a Monday which was the eve of the Budget, and the day on which Her Majesty arrived in Paris on her State Visit. What was even more curious was that the statement was put out less than two days prior to the quarterly meeting of the B.B.C. Advisory Council. Thus the Advisory Council was presented with a fait accompli and had no opportunity whatever of tendering any advice on the matter. I cannot help wondering what the Council does advise on if it is not asked for advice on the wholesale reorganisation of sound broadcasting.
In brief, the proposals are these. The Home Service and the Light Programme will be "planned together"—that is the phrase that is used—and they will join to form a single programme at some periods of the day. The Light Programme, we are told, "will place even greater emphasis on programmes of wide popular appeal." While admitting that the Light Programme must have popular appeal, I must confess that I have never yet heard a complaint that it is not light enough as it stands. I think that this part of the statement, taken with the proposal that the two services should be joined together in some measure, strikes a somewhat melancholy note.
I want now to come to the proposals for the Third Programme, because I think that this is the nub of the matter. It is true that the Third is not to be abolished, and we may never know whether or not the original intention was to abandon it altogether, and whether the protests that sprang up spontaneously brought about some second thoughts. The Third Programme is, however, to be cut to some three hours per day. One might say that, having rejected murder, the B.B.C. is content to commit mayhem, because it has imposed a cut of almost a half on the Third Programme. I believe that the reduction in programme hours is of the order of 45 per cent.
No one has said precisely what is to be cut, but so far as one can gather from Press interviews and rumours it is mainly

to be talks, although I doubt if one could get a reduction of that order by eliminating talks only. The Corporation's Press statement said that "the shortened Third Programme would provide room for all that was "truly worthy of inclusion." That observation, Sir, contrasts very markedly with another B.B.C. statement issued less than a year ago—a publication entitled "The Tenth Anniversary", to which I shall refer again later.
"The Tenth Anniversary" is a paean of praise of the Third Programme. It reviews the first ten years of its existence, and is on the whole even more enthusiastic about the Programme than I will be. Nevertheless, it also contains some extremely interesting factual information.
Finally, we have the introduction of Network Three, which is to use the Third Programme wavelength for the earlier part of the evening up to eight p.m. It is very difficult to get any clear or coherent picture of Network Three from the information that has been released, but it will obviously be something of a hotchpotch. It is announced that Network Three will accommodate talks displaced from the Home Service and the Light Programme and will do some further education. It will also include new projects for specialised audiences.
The specialised audiences will include those interested in week-end and leisure pursuits, and in specialist sporting activities, and also various fields of professional work. These proposals were rather summed up by The Times in two words, "More Light"—but the leader that followed hardly suggested that the editor was using the words in the same sense as Goethe's cry from his deathbed.
We might well ask what prompted this agonising re-appraisal of sound broadcasting, because the B.B.C. explanation is very far from convincing. It fails to convince because the Corporation is really reluctant to disclose the main reason behind its proposals. I do not think that, to any great extent, it was prompted by the desire for economy. It is said that £1 million will be saved somehow, but I doubt if it is suggested that there will be a net saving of £1 million, because there is Network Three to be taken into account.
I believe that the B.B.C. is disturbed by the steady transfer of audiences from sound to television, and from B.B.C. television to commercial television, and that it believes that, by placing more emphasis on light entertainment, somehow or other this process can be arrested or retarded. I consider that to be a policy which is wholly wrong in intention and mistaken in logic. I believe that in making this decision, which is in my view a retrograde one, the B.B.C. is falling short of that duty which is implicit in any monopoly of sound broadcasting.
I think the House as a whole would agree that as a force in popular education, acting on standards which were established in the first instance by Lord Reith, often in face of violent criticism, the B.B.C. has been unrivalled in our generation. It has managed to do this not only by maintaining generally high standards in its sound broadcasting, but by deliberately catering for minority as well as for mass audiences, a policy which came into full flower with the introduction of the Third Programme in 1946.
I should like to say a word or two about the Third Programme. There is no time this afternoon to embark upon a list of the achievements of this programme in ten years, but it has built up a reputation which is quite unique in the world. No other country has even attempted a broadcasting programme with so consistently a high level as this. Obviously no person can be interested in everything that the Third Programme puts out, and the same thing is true, indeed, of any radio or television programme. But one can say that music lovers have been enabled to hear performances of works which they could never hope to hear in the concert hall or the opera house. Drama enthusiasts have been able to hear plays of great interest and quality, which no theatre could be expected to mount.
In addition, the Third Programme has introduced the works of new authors and composers. Perhaps I need only mention the work of the Italian dramatist Ugo Betti, which, oddly enough, after being introduced to the public by the B.B.C., found its way through the Third Programme into the commercial theatre proper. I would remind the House, too, that it was the B.B.C. Third Programme which commissioned Dylan Thomas's

Under Milk Wood ". Similarly with talks and features, the standard has been consistently high, although inevitably— and one freely admits it—some of the subjects have had a very limited appeal.
The Third Programme has never aimed at a large regular audience. Its listeners choose the items to which they listen with some care. But I think it is fair to ask the size of that audience. The B.B.C. itself estimates that 1,600,000 people over the age of twenty-one listen to the Third Programme at least once a week and that nearly three times as many more listen at least once a month. These are not negligible figures, especially when one considers the poor reception of the Third Programme over quite a large area of the country. Nor are they all "highbrows" to use a common term of abuse. According to B.B.C. research, a surprising proportion of the listeners to the Third Programme come from that section of the community whose education and background would not lead one to expect they would be Third Programme listeners.
I said earlier that these proposals, which I understand have produced a black depression in Broadcasting House, are not only wrong in intention but are mistaken in logic, and I want to deal with the latter part of my charge. I think they are mistaken because the television enthusiasts will not be seduced back to sound by being offered lighter and lighter sound broadcasting. If a person merely wants light entertainment, he already has the Television Service, provided he can afford to buy a television set. Having a television set, he will use it to the maximum and to the exclusion of sound radio, if indeed he still has a sound radio set. Equally, as more and more people who want television find that they can afford it, the same arguments apply. They are not going back to sound.
Admittedly there are a lot of people who treat their radio as their wallpaper, to quote a phrase in The Economist. Nevertheless, there is also a substantial audience for sound broadcasting who definitely prefer sound broadcasting because it offers something a little more serious, more stimulating, perhaps more enduring, more varied and, in some cases, more educational. These are the very people, so far as I can see, whom the B.B.C. are prepared to throw to the wolves.
What has happened is the inevitable consequence of the introduction of commercial television. When the Television Bill was going through the House, many hon. Members on these benches argued that commercial television, dependent as it has to be upon advertising, would be forced to aim at the lowest common denominator in popular entertainment. It has got to please the mass audience—the "Admass", as Mr. J. B. Priestley has called it. We prophesied that this contagion would spread to the B.B.C. and that the whole level of broadcasting would be debased thereby. Hon. Members opposite, at least those who supported the Bill in their hearts as well as in the Lobby, said that we were wrong. Unhappily, this chain reaction is now to be seen in process.
Here and there, admittedly, there are Independent Television programmes which have made a bold attempt to please something other than the mass audience and to provide more serious entertainment than the large popular audience can take. It may be a gallant fight, but it is certainly a losing fight the advertisers see to that. So far as commercial television is concerned, numbers are everything, and so the B.B.C. too has begun to think in numbers. The disease is spreading from television to sound radio, and inevitably we have this new policy.
The Assistant Postmaster-General told me the other day that we must wait and see what the B.B.C.'s review produces. That suggests—at least, I hope I am right in thinking it suggests—that no final decision has been taken. Perhaps one of the few good things about this pronouncement is that we are told that the new policy will be implemented gradually and will not be fully in force until next October. I hope that this interval gives time for reflection and for second thoughts.
I beg the Corporation, through the Assistant Postmaster-General, not to sacrifice its high standards and its very well deserved reputation for quality, especially on sound radio, to the Moloch of the mass audience. To do so would be to fail in its duty to minorities and to betray the trust which is implicit in its Charter and in its monopoly.

2.50 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) for raising this matter today. While I cannot share his views, and I am in some respects slightly critical of his attitude in this matter, that does not mean in the least that I do not entirely share his admiration for the work of the Third Programme of the B.B.C. and his desire that it should continue and increase and be of better quality.
Like other hon. Members, I received a number of letters on the subject. I read the correspondence and articles in the Press, and I was at first rather concerned. However, this has turned out to be an occasion when, as sometimes happens, a thing starts off "on the wrong leg ", if I may put it that way. The suggestion that the Third Programme was to be abolished was, no doubt, one of the reasons—probably the main reason—why there was the enthusiastic response to the advertisement which, I understand, a gentleman put in The Times. I had many letters which were almost entirely based on the assumption that the programme was to be abolished. That assumption was quite wrong.
When I found that the agitation was to be continued on that basis, I thought it my duty to try to find out the facts. In such circumstances, I believe in going to the source to find out about things, so I took the opportunity of getting in touch with the actual people in the B.B.C. who are responsible for running the Third Programme. I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with several of them and getting their views. I am sorry to say that I found that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North had not been in touch with any of the people I met.
I asked the people with whom I discussed the matter what their view was about this change. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, thought it right to say that there was black depression in Broadcasting House. That seems an unfortunate thing to say if one has not talked to the people who are actually doing the job. There is no black depression among those to whom I talked. Of course, anyone who is doing a job which takes part of the time and resources of any organisation wants to get as big a share as he can; my hon.


Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General and his Department, for instance, like to get their hands on as much as they can.
Those concerned in Broadcasting House, however, are reasonable people, and they realise that they cannot have everything. It is not that they consider that this will have the result of lowering the quality of the Third Programme. On the other hand, they have assured me, in my discussions with them, that they believe that the standard of the Third Programme will be improved.
There was no question whatever, as, indeed, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North himself was fair enough to admit, that any large economy was to be made. The hon. Gentleman appeared to suggest that there was some deliberate policy of change designed to destroy or, at any rate, maim the "intellectual innocence" of Broadcasting House. I can assure him, after having talked to the people concerned, that they are not under such misapprehensions at all.
I will give one or two examples of what is being attempted. At present, the hours of broadcasting on the Third Programme are these. The standard period of transmission is, I think, five hours, and there is an extra hour on Sunday afternoon. Under the new arrangement, there will be three hours, and I am assured that there is every hope that there it will also be on Sunday as well. Certainly, the more demand there is from outside that it should be on Sunday, the more certain it is that it will be. We are now to have three hours as against five.
The view of those responsible for these programmes is that there is now a great deal of material which is attractive only to a small proportion of people, even of those who listen to the Third Programme, which has the effect of discouraging others from listening to the Third Programme. Those in charge have their research arrangements; they have a very good idea of what is going on. They do not want to destroy this great production of theirs, but they believe that there is quite a number of programmes which do not encourage anyone to go on listening on other occasions.
I do not want to give any examples, but there are certain lectures, for instance, which are read out and which

have an interest for a very small number of people only. Moreover, a number of those who give such lectures do not necessarily have a broadcasting technique. Quite frankly, there are not many people who can stand it for very long. One can, therefore, dispense with a great deal of material without any loss at all.
I was interested in a letter in The Times the other day from a gentleman in Chicago. He was very upset about this new proposal; in Chicago, he said, they have that kind of thing going on for 13 hours a day, and he thought that it would really be terrible if the B.B.C. were to cut the amount of time it devotes to similar material. For my part, I do not think that we could stand 13 hours a day of the Third Programme. I was interested enough to make inquiries, and I found that a very large part of the 13 hours in Chicago is occupied by material obtained from our Home Service, not from the Third Programme.
One must have a sense of proportion in these matters and give a chance to these people who are doing a very difficult job. It is a pity that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, adopted quite the tone he did. There will be a combination of the Third Programme and, as I think it is called, Network Three, which will have the great advantage of v.h.f. coverage which will fill some important gaps.
Network Three is to be a new venture. It will be an important development, for it will cover the period from six o'clock until eight o'clock which is now covered by the Third Programme, and will bring into play something of a slightly less severe character than usually put out by the Third. Indeed, since reference has been made to the suggestion that the only result of these changes would be "More light", one might say that some people would not mind if things were a little less "heavy". That is how things will be.
There is no time to go into the details; one can study them, with very great interest, as I have tried to do. I feel that we might look at it in this way. If the effect of combining the Third Programme with the new Network Three is that people will listen, perhaps, between six and eight, will think the programmes interesting, and will go on to find themselves listening to the Third Programme


and be attracted to that, I do not share the pessimism of the hon. Gentleman that they will at once turn off because it is not "Rock 'n' Roll". After all, the hon. Gentleman would not want to denigrate those who have been listening to a discussion, for instance, about weekend rambling, because they would want only to listen to "Rock 'n' Roll". One must take a reasonable view. The combination of these two programmes may well be very interesting and important. It may produce the sort of result referred to in the old saying about people who come to scoff and remain to pray—in this case, not necessarily to pray, but, comparatively speaking, perhaps one might so describe it.
In conclusion, I must emphasise that there was no intention to slaughter the programme; any such suggestion is quite mistaken. From my inquiries, I can find no evidence that there was ever any intention to do anything of that kind, nor— I hope I can say this without impertinence—can I find any evidence that the activity of the body which the hon. Gentleman described had any effect in changing policy. The policy is now what it was before, to improve, to streamline, if one likes that word, and to carry on the Third Programme, which has been a great success. In my view, we should do a great service to the B.B.C. and to everyone today if we were to wish it the best of good fortune.

3.0 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I listened with very great interest to the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). One of his phrases filled me with misgiving. The theory that things are improved by being cut is a doctrine which is applied to all sorts of economies of different kinds. Indeed, one hon. Member opposite has said that the loss of Lord Salisbury would greatly strengthen the Government.

Sir L. Heald: It applies to speeches.

Mr. Benn: It might apply to speeches, but I doubt very much whether it applies always to pruning.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) on raising the subject today. I am one of those who believes that the relations between the B.B.C. and the public are sometimes really very bad. I

say this because the B.B.C. is in an entirely independent position, as it ought to be, from the viewpoint of its policy, but it is one of those bodies which, as it has no competition for customers in the sound field, and having no responsibility to Parliament or anybody else, is sometimes unresponsive to public opinion. I like to think that this House discusses the affairs of the B.B.C. from time to time.
This House is a very great gainer by the B.B.C. It has been said of another place—I forget who said it that "the temple of its fame rests upon the columns of The Times" because The Times is the only newspaper which reports its proceedings. Certainly, of this House it might be said that we greatly benefit by the broadcasting about Parliament—for example, "The Week in Westminster" and "Today in Parliament." Even Big Ben, our own clock, is the timepiece of almost every house in the land, and Parliament has become better known and understood, and its workings better understood, through the B.B.C. than by any newspaper or other method of communication. As so, if I may sum up, it is with affectionate criticism that we should approach the problems that confront the B.B.C.
I have, however, one sense of grievance, in that the B.B.C. never publishes audience figures properly so that we can study them. I get sent to me every year, as, I suppose, every hon. Member does, the Handbook of the B.B.C. I do not quite know why it is sent, except that as a public relations effort it is welcome. I searched through it today to be sure that I was right in my suspicion that no audience figures of any kind are published in the Handbook. Although it tells one the name, initials and age of the chief engineering officer in Northern Ireland and the names of the members of the Advisory Council on Sporting Activities on the West Region, it contains no mention of how many people listen to the nine o'clock news or other programmes. We are, therefore, at a slight disadvantage, which is particularly difficult when we are discussing programme policies, as we are today.
I would, however, say about the Third Programme—though I do not want only to speak of the Third Programme—that it is unquestionably the envy of those


people who come to this country and see the way that we do our broadcasting. I will not exaggerate, but if the recent Budget is supposed to keep ordinary people from emigrating, I think that the Third Programme holds the intellectuals —if I may call them that—in this country. The long-haired boys who would otherwise be flooding to Australia House to inquire about cheap passage outwards are held here by the knowledge that on Tuesday week, for example, there is to be a play in Russian on the Third Programme. This is a perfect example of what a public service system is able to do.
I want to go even further and to say that I sympathise strongly with the B.B.C. in the problem it faces as the result of the increase in television. I am not one who believes that we should all listen to radio as God intended and not get muddled up with the silver screen. Obviously, the move to television is inevitable. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that this problem is produced by commercial television. It is produced by television, and the fact that people are buying television sets means simply—or, if it does not mean it now, will shortly do so—that the B.B.C. has less money available for its sound programmes.
The question is, what sort of pattern of sound broadcasting should there be in these new circumstances? In reading the B.B.C.'s hand-out on the new autumn services, I was much taken by its view, which I accept, that there will always be room for a basic sound service, and, indeed, that certain programmes are better provided in sound than on television. The news, music and good serious talks can be enjoyed without the benefit of watching the faces of those who are producing them. At the same time, however, the sound services ought to be providing a proper service for the minority.
When weighing up the claims of the minority, it is difficult to know exactly how it should be done. There are, of course, minorities by special interest, and I think that the Third Programme, although it would disclaim any pretence at being a highbrow institution, is a programme designed to meet people with a comparatively narrow interest. Then there are the geographical areas which have a claim because they have special cultural ties—for example, with the land of Wales and with Scotland; and the

regions have claims to be considered, as they are considered by regional broadcasting. Now, we are told that Network Three is to provide for people with special interests, and for some reason the B.B.C. has given the example of pigeon fanciers.
It is difficult to know how to compare the intensity of enjoyment of some people who listen to these high-quality programmes with the value that comes from the mass audience. We remember what the old lady said—" Why spend £1 on an umbrella when you get an apple for 2d.?" It did not help, but it indicated the difficulty of weighing up the relative importance of the mass enjoyment of the people listening to the big entertainment shows on an evening—which I gratefully enjoy when I listen to them—and the special enjoyment that can only come to the pigeon fancier when he listens to an expert talking on his own subject.
In my view, the cut in the Third Programme will represent a real loss, because it is quite clear that those who listen to it listen deliberately. Nobody switches on to the Third Programme as background listening. People listen to it because they want to hear a programme. They probably hear the best man on the subject, and although it may be shockingly delivered—sometimes the B.B.C. is slack in not making these people learn more about broadcasting technique; there is no excuse for a man rustling his script just because he is a professor of archaeology—at any rate the enjoyment of the audience is very great indeed.
For all that, I still think there is room for improvement in the Third Programme. I would like—as I think most people would—to get my hands on it for a while and see whether I could not introduce a little more life into some of its more controversial broadcasting, which has been greatly lacking. I would like to see the Third Programme, not with a permanent X certificate for adults only in the ordinary sense, but I would like to see it putting out really controversial broadcasts which are at present excluded altogether from the air.
It is not only the Third Programme minority that we have to consider. I rose particularly this afternoon to make a plea for a much bigger minority which has been completely ignored by the B.B.C. since the very earliest days of broadcasting. That is the minority of people


who work at night. It never seems to have occurred to anybody in Broadcasting House that a large number of people get up before 6.30 in the morning and go to bed after midnight. We are shortly moving into the various stages of the Finance Bill. When during the Committee stage we finally hear those magic words, "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again" and we head for home, it will be after 12 o'clock on many occasions. As we take off our socks and brush our teeth, really light music will be denied to us unless we can pick up something from the American Forces Network.
We, however, are the luxury night people. I am thinking of the serious night people, those who do their job at night. There are 70,000 police in this country, and I suppose that all of them at some time or other do night work. There are over a million agricultural workers who get up before 6.30 in the morning and for whom nothing whatever is provided for their enjoyment when they are having their breakfast. Nothing is provided for the 250,000 railwaymen who work on shift—I checked the figure with the Transport Commission this morning—and who, at some time or other, work early turn, late turn or through the night.
When I tried to get from the Ministry of Labour the total figure of people who do shift work at some time or other, it was very difficult to find out the exact total. One would certainly not be far wrong in saying that the people who regularly do night work of some kind or other total well over one million and that probably, if we include others, there are two or three million people who could benefit in some way. It seems to me to be absolutely scandalous that the Home Service, Light Programme and Third Programme should be provided for day people while nothing is provided for the night people.
When I have said this in private conversations people have said to me, "If you allow broadcasting at night that will disturb those of us who are trying to sleep." That is adding such monstrous insult to such terrible injury that it hardly bears thinking about. First of all, we prevent the night people from sleeping in the daytime by the noise of broad-

casting to the day people and then we prevent them listening in at night for fear that the noise will disturb the day people who are then in bed. I say no more than that if we provide entertainment for the day workers we ought also to provide entertainment for the night workers.
The size of the Third Programme audience cannot really be reduced to statistics, but it is said that the normal audience of the Third Programme is between 40,000 and 50,000. It frequently rises to 100,000, and the peak audience is about 250,000. The number is increased, of course, by the number of those who listen to the Third Programme occasionally. I should like to see the people who work from midnight to 6.30 in the morning getting a little better deal.
Although no one has mentioned it in the House, it is a fact that we are entering a new era in sound broadcasting. The great case for the B.B.C.'s monopoly up to now has been the technical case that only a limited number of medium and short wavelengths were available, but with V.H.F. we are able to have far more broadcasting if we can provide the matter to broadcast and if we can finance it.
I think the B.B.C. has got to be conscious of the fact that we gave it a monopoly and that we in Parliament are in a position to decide upon some other system if we consider that the services offered to the minority and to the majority are not truly satisfactory. That is a reason why I wish there were more debates here in this House on broadcasting policy, for through our debates the B.B.C. can be made aware of public feeling on these matters and, in response, show a greater awareness of its wonderful opportunities.

3.12 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: I was one of those hon. Members who put their names to the Motion sponsored by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), to which he alluded. I welcomed and I also support the Third Programme, and I congratulate those friends of the Third Programme throughout the country who have, I think, done a great deal to ensure its maintenance in some form or another.
It was not quite a case of repeating Adlai Stevenson's cry, "Eggheads of the


world unite", but, anyhow, it was a case of the "eggheads" of the United Kingdom uniting, and I have no doubt that they have had some effect in stiffening the attitude of the B.B.C. towards the Third Programme. However, I think the B.B.C. has come to a correct decision, because I am sure that the timing for that programme should be after eight o'clock in the evening. Therefore, I believe that the decision which would seem to have been reached by the B.B.C. concerning that programme is a fair, just and sensible decision.
Everybody who has taken part in this debate, and who is interested in this programme, appreciates the importance of it, and, indeed, tributes have been paid to it already. It has played, and should play, an important part in any broadcasting policy of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I am never so sure about the desire for an educational motif in some other of the arguments of the B.B.C. I have great fear that that precious element may enter into decisions concerning this programme. I have always thought that the Third Programme forms and creates a genuine desire, and genuine belief in the need, to provide a programme for an important, if small, minority, and a programme which does and should play an important part in the broadcasting policy of a national corporation.
The future of what is called "steam radio" is surely very limited. It will always have a certain appeal, and will be the only entertainment for persons unable to see—blind persons, for instance; but it is only in catering for those in special circumstances that there will be a future for sound broadcasting. The development of television, and the ability of everybody to purchase, is such that very shortly, when the technical means have been developed—and that will not be long—television will be the main source of entertainment in every household in the country.
Although it has been attempted, I do not think that it is possible to compare sound radio and television with the theatre and the cinema. Both sound radio and the television are domestic entertainments, and I have no doubt that television must completely eliminate sound radio from all households except the compara-

tively few exceptions of those of persons unable to see. I think it is a pity because sound radio is and always has been a spur to the imagination, which television is not. Sound radio stimulates; television can, in a way, drug.
The British Broadcasting Corporation is much more robust in accepting criticisms than some of its more ardent supporters in the Press and elsewhere. I appreciate that in certain of those circles it is considered utter heresy in any way to criticise the attitude of the Corporation or its policy. However, I want to refer to one matter, and that is overseas broadcasting and the policy of the B.B.C. for that.
Our system in this country is an adult political system which allows for agitators in Hyde Park and Members of Parliament in this Chamber to advocate their different views and yet afterwards, behind the scenes, not to exhibit the same fierceness exhibited either on the soap boxes in Hyde Park or on the benches in this Chamber. We enjoy certain dialectical niceties which are not appreciated by very many persons overseas. There is sophistication and adultness about our ability to debate in a manner most fierce which may not be appreciated by people overseas when our differences of view are solemnly, sometimes pompously, broadcast to them.
In our broadcasting to countries overseas there is great need for some straightforward and simple expression of our basic policies, as delivered to countries overseas as the voice of Britain. There is, therefore, necessity for the B.B.C. to have a channel, band or wavelength for the voice of this country in matters of foreign affairs, by which, as I have said here before, there should be propagated abroad the policy which is basically believed in by the people of this country.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Member is dealing with a most important matter. He is now suggesting that the Opposition point of view on, for example, the Suez crisis, or on foreign affairs generally, should not be transmitted abroad. Has he thought that through to its logical conclusion? It is very dangerous.

Mr. Rawlinson: I do not see the danger that the hon. Member seems to see.
I am saying that there can always be debate in this country, and there always will be, and no one would wish to stop


it, but countries overseas, to which there is broadcasting from this country, are not in the same condition of sensibility and sophistication as we to be able to understand that from the fierceness of argument here, despite the fierceness of argument, there eventually emerges a policy.
Therefore if, in broadcasting all over the world, and, in particular, to the Near and Middle East, we demonstrate the enormous amount and variety of the arguments that we have, and without clearly demonstrating what is our accepted policy, we may cause such confusion in those countries—as we have in the past—as to lead them to believe in perfidious Albion and to lead them to feel, as they have been led in the past to feel, uncertain of where we stand and how we stand. There is danger in that.

Mr. Benn: Mr. Benn rose—

Mr. Rawlinson: I know that the Assistant Postmaster-General wants some time to sum up the debate, so I must not take many more minutes, for I have already kept him waiting for a long time, so the hon. Member must forgive me if I do not give way again.
There is a great need in our broadcasting for the expression of the voice of Britain, especially in foreign policy, to express the policy of the Government of the day to people overseas, so that those people overseas may know what the policy is of the Government of the day, the policy which has the support of the people of this country, so that people overseas may know where Her Majesty's Government stand.

3.20 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): The scope of the speeches to which we have listened give justification and sanction, if they were needed, to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) in introducing this subject. There is no doubt at all that hon. Members, the Press and every home in the country are concerned and involved in what the B.B.C. does with the time and resources that are available to it.
The B.B.C. has come to be knit into the pattern of life of our people in many ways. Therefore, it is a good thing that the Press and the House, and critics of all kinds, should take some concern about

the intentions of the B.B.C. Indeed, I do not think that it is going too far to say that the Governors of the B.B.C. and the staff who work within it must welcome criticism of all kinds, provided that it is intelligent, sophisticated, and constructive criticism designed to help the B.B.C. to achieve the kind of programme that will be satisfactory to itself and to those who listen to it.
I feel that there is very little danger of the B.B.C. building itself into an ivory tower of seclusion away from criticism. Quite the contrary. The House is full of those who can give very good advice, as we have heard today, on what the B.B.C. ought to be doing. So are the newspapers and all points at which men and women meet to exchange ideas. There is no danger of the B.B.C. suffering from lack of good advice.
I was a little alarmed at the thought of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North making designs to get his hands on the Third Programme, as he put it. That leads me to the quite important consideration which we ought to bear in mind, that is, the relationship that exists between the House or the Government of the day and the B.B.C. Parliament has been very careful to separate the day-to-day running of the B.B.C. and the structure and content of its programmes from too detailed interference by us or anyone else. I am sure that the House will feel that that is a thoroughly good thing for us to maintain. I have a note of a Resolution which the House passed in 1933, which says:
 That this House…is of opinion that it would be contrary to the public interest to subject the Corporation to any control by Government or by Parliament other than the control already provided for in the charter and the licence of the Corporation. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1933; Vol. 274. c. 1869.]
I think that that is still the will of us all.
Nevertheless, we have a representative capacity, and if a public corporation does something or looks like doing something that flies contrary to what we believe to be right, this is the forum for expressions of opinion to be exchanged. As the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said, the B.B.C. announced in January that it was going to review the sound radio service in the light of the constantly changing audience pattern in the country, with the


massive growth of television, both B.B.C. and Independent, the development of v.h.f. services and the increasing complexity of the use of medium waves both in this country and in neighbouring countries.
That announcement that the B.B.C. will carry out a revision of its sound radio services was made in January. Therefore, there has been plenty of time for those who thought that their interests might be affected to let their opinions be known. No doubt a good deal of good advice has flowed to the B.B.C. as to what should be done with the various programmes.
Now we have the statement issued by the B.B.C. at the close of its consideration of the system. I do not think that there is anything suspicious about the B.B.C.'s timing in handling this matter. This revision has been known to the public as having been going on from January until April. It may be a fortuitous benefit, a sort of unearned bonus, that the announcement happened to be made to the public on the day before the Budget. If that is a device to be adopted, we did rather well to have the Budget on the same day as Her Majesty the Queen went to Paris, but I assure the House that that was no more a manoeuvre by Her Majesty's Government than was the timing of the announcing of its intentions by the B.B.C. The Corporation wanted the widest publicity for its announcement.

Mr. K. Robinson: Would the hon. Gentleman say a word about the Advisory Council?

Mr. Thompson: I was hoping to deal with that in a moment.
What exactly is the B.B.C. proposing to do with its sound radio services? Will it in fact make any drastic alterations? The Light Programme will be lighter. It is intended for those who like distraction and relaxation in the least demanding form. It is meant to be a light programme, and I see no cause for alarm if the B.B.C. proposes to make it a little lighter. It will not be entirely a frivolous programme. It will contain news broadcasts and that kind of make-up, but, however much people may deplore the wide demand for light listening—and I certainly do not—the demand is there,

and the B.B.C. is right and wise to try to meet it as fully as it can.
The Home Programme will remain. It is designed to satisfy those who want to listen more attentively to both entertainment and information. After the changes, the Home Programme will contain news broadcasts, a full information service, discussions of current affairs and a wide range of music, and it will carry a great deal of regional broadcasting, which is a distinctive feature of the B.B.C.'s contribution to our life. It is one which has benefited both the regions—and I speak as a provincial—and London and Home Counties too. Therefore, the Home Service, as a service, will not be destroyed.
The B.B.C. has announced that at certain times of the day the Home and Light Programmes will come together, but I am assured that, for the greater part of the time when the B.B.C. is broadcasting, there will be two separate programmes each providing for a different type of customer, each doing its best to satisfy that customer and each now planned not in competition with the other but in a way which it is hoped will enable us to get the best out of both.
Then we come to the Third Programme, and it is here where the controversy rages. If the B.B.C. were proposing to destroy it, I have no doubt that the battalions would have marched on to the headquarters of the B.B.C. and made their wishes widely known. But the B.B.C. is as keen to retain the Third Programme as is anyone in this House or outside.
The discussion that we are really engaged in is to decide what is the right length for the Third Programme. Is it three hours or five and a half hours? Has the B.B.C. been right up to now in including in the Third Programme items which it would probably have been better to print than to read over the air —as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) suggested, items which, by being read over the air, may have driven thousands away from the Third Programme? There is a point of view of considerable importance which lends support to the belief that the Third Programme can be improved by putting it into its proper perspective.
There is a letter in The Times this morning which supports the view that the B.B.C. may be doing the right thing and, in fact, giving an advantage to those who like to listen to the kind of things broadcast in the Third Programme, and, as we have been reminded, in Network Three, which will contain items that have been gathered together either from the present Third Programme or from the Home Service or wherever they may have been a little out of place. Network Three will be on the air as a rule for two hours each evening from six o'clock until eight o'clock. I assure the House that even the three-hour period of the Third Programme proper is not bound by any immutable law, and if a programme requires that it shall run longer, the B.B.C. will arrange for it to be so.
That is the pattern of programmes which the B.B.C. proposes to put out for the enlightenment and enjoyment of the people of this country, starting in the fall. There is no great change, no great loss. In fact, a point of view can be sustained that there will be a real gain both to those who like lighter Light and those who want better Third, and I think we should be wise to let the B.B.C. get on with its plans and see how far it can go to satisfy the requirements of the greatest possible number of its listeners.
I now wish to say a few words about the amount of consultation in which the B.B.C. engaged before reaching the conclusion that this was the right pattern for its future services. The B.B.C. is not sheltered in any way from the tides of public opinion. Indeed, I am sure that it knows as much about what the public think about its programmes as anyone in this House can know; certainly the members of its Board of Governors do, because they have the listener figures, the research techniques, the machinery, and the "gimmicks," which help to tell the B.B.C. what it is the public are listening to, and what the public want to listen to. I think that the B.B.C. is quite capable of translating those figures and of considering the inferences behind them in a way which will guide it to do the best it can for the greatest possible number of listeners.
The House has been fortunate to have this debate, even if it is a short one. The B.B.C. has been fortunate that the House has taken upon itself the respon-

sibility of expressing an opinion on what the B.B.C. is doing. That is our duty, and it is a thoroughly good thing for any public corporation. However, we should not overstate the case or allow ourselves to be alarmed. There is a real danger for us all in this matter of getting our points of view more than a little out of context. It does not need me to remind the House that there are large numbers of listeners who picture "Auntie B.B.C."—as they call the B.B.C.—as trotting with abject servility behind a small and narrowing band of "eggheads" to the exclusion of everyone else That picture is as wrong a conception as that of Sir Ian Jacob, with his eyes open and his ears closed, leading droves of skiffling swine into a "honky tonk" hell. Thank goodness we are a more mixed society—salty as well as serene, erudite as well as easy-going, high, low and middle-brow, all mixed up together. I do not think that any of us do too badly out of what the B.B.C. provides, so I do not think that the cognoscenti should be too provoked if the non-U slip shows every now and then.

BISMUTH METAL (STOCKPILING)

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: I am sorry to have to take the House away from a very interesting discussion to one which is, however, equally important, and which deals with the problem of the stockpiling of certain metals, particularly bismuth metal. When most people think of bismuth they probably think of the meal given on certain occasions before an X-ray, but that is not what I want to talk about this afternoon. I want to speak about the supply of the metal itself.
This has arisen as a result of correspondence between a constituent of mine and the Atomic Energy Authority, and subsequently of correspondence I have had with various Government Departments. This started with the Ministry of Power, then it was diverted by the Minister of Power to the Ministry of Supply, and by that Ministry to the Lord President of the Council, and, finally, back to the Atomic Energy Authority, which was where we started.
It is because of that difficulty that I am raising the matter this afternoon, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of


Trade for accepting responsibility for this subject and so providing me with a Government Department which is able to deal with this problem.
The origin of it was that my constituent, Mr. G. T. Hodge, the managing director of Mining and Chemical Products, Ltd., of Alperton, supplies bismuth metal to the Atomic Energy Authority. The Authority had inquired not only from him but, I gather, from other firms about the possibility of increasing the supply of bismuth metal. I understand that it is not easy suddenly to increase the supplies of this metal.
The metal is obtained as a by-product in the extraction of other metals from their ores, chiefly lead. Its raw material comes from countries like Bolivia, Mexico and Korea, all of which are, of course, completely outside our control. Any sudden increase in the demand would probably result in a great increase in the price. If the increased supply is needed in, say, 1958, 1959 or 1960, it is necessary to begin husbanding stocks immediately, otherwise any sudden demand by the Atomic Energy Authority for increased supplies would probably be met only by a reduction of supplies to other commercial users or even to other countries.
The plan put forward by my constituent is to lay in stocks gradually, starting from now, a proportion of the price to be paid for by the Government Department concerned. If, eventually, it were found that the stock was not needed this firm would take it back at the same price and at the same rate at which it was built up. Those are the broad outlines of a plan which would take all risk away from the Government and ensure supplies at a reasonable price whether they were needed or not.
The reply that my constituent got, and I got from the Atomic Energy Authority when I took it up with the Authority, was that it was too early to say whether the increased supplies might be needed. The actual wording of the letter I received was:
…it would, naturally, be inappropriate to take any action to secure such materials until a much later stage of development and until the particular reactor systems concerned had shown some signs of success.
I gather that if the "taking of any action" were delayed until these particular reactor systems showed some signs of

success, it would then be too late to begin the stockpiling without the demand being too great for the existing supplies and the price having to be increased. I gather that this is the time to begin stockpiling if this increased supply is needed in two or three years' time.
This applies not only to bismuth metal for the Atomic Energy Authority, but to other metals, like copper and tin, for any other Government Department which may want them now that the price is very low. I am reminded that in 1950, when stockpiling took place rather suddenly on account of the Korean War, we bought cadmium, for example, at that time from the United States Government at a price of about 4 dollars 50 cents. per 1b. and sometime during the past financial year we began selling back that cadmium not to the United States Government, but to United States buyers, at a price of about 1 dollar, 50 cents. per 1b. I know that my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wildly out in the price.
That represents a loss of three dollars or over £1 per 1b. of metal. I do not know the quantities involved, but it seems to me a very great loss to have to take, even over a period of six years, on supplies of metal acquired from the United States at the time when we had to stockpile, and sold back to that country, if not to that Government, later on.
When I asked the President of the Board of Trade a Question about this a few weeks ago, the Answer that I received was:
 It is not the practice to disclose details of strategic reserve transactions.
I quite understand that. My right hon. Friend went on:
 Moreover, the concept of profit and loss is inappropriate in this connection since these holdings were purchased, and their disposal decided upon, for strategic, not commercial, reasons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1957; Vol. 567, c. 159–60.]
I suggest that, if it is possible to do so, the financial problem should be taken into consideration whether the holdings are for a strategic stockpile or not. If we can obtain the metal now, and, if necessary, sell it again without loss, surely it is much better to do that than buy it blindly at a high price when we are forced to do so and afterwards sell it at a loss.
I suggest that my constituent's plan, the broad outlines of which I have given, is a very sound and sensible one for taking all the risk away from the Government. If private industry is willing to handle the risk, surely that is a great advantage. In that case, the taxpayers will stand no risk of a loss at all. The plan is that my constituent's firm will take back the stock, whether it is needed or not, at the price at which it was supplied. Therefore, if the Atomic Energy Authority finds, in the end, that it does not need this metal, there will be no loss on selling it. The firm will take the risk of any loss in handling the material.
This is a gift horse which the Government should accept, in the case not only of bismuth, but of any other metals of this kind. I ask my hon. Friend not to look in its mouth, but to accept it. If he cannot say today that he will accept it. I hope he will consider what I have said and see whether it can be accepted in the end.

3.43 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) related how he had approached several Ministers about the matter and said that, as I should be answering at the Dispatch Box, it seemed as though his problem had finally come to roost in the Board of Trade. I should make it plain that the reason why I am answering his remarks today is that the Board of Trade has the responsibility for strategic and trading stocks which were built up some time ago, and it was thought, therefore, that it would be best if I were to explain some aspects of the general matter first and then deal with the case of bismuth, which is more properly a matter for the Atomic Energy Authority itself.
A number of materials were stockpiled by the Government during the war and in the years immediately after the war. The original stockpiles were solely for strategic purposes, but after the war, particularly at the time of the Korea War, there was a certain amount of stockpiling for trading purposes in order to supply manufacturers in this country with, in particular, metals which it was thought might become in short supply owing to the large demands of the Korean boom. Since that

time, the Government have decided to give up all forms of trading in trading stocks and to run down their strategic stockpiles.
The decision to run down stocks was announced in the Statement on Defence, 1956, Cmd. 9691. In paragraph 125 of the statement it was announced that we had decided to make a start on that in 1956–57, that we would take care to avoid disrupting markets, and that, where substantial quantities of any commodities were involved, the arrangements would be discussed with appropriate interests.
My hon. Friend referred particularly to the loss which he alleged was sustained over cadmium stocks, and quoted a reply of my right hon. Friend to a Question which he asked a short while ago. It is certainly not the practice to indicate the profit or loss on the disposal of strategic stockpiles, or, indeed, stockpiles for trading purposes. The example which my hon. Friend quoted serves to illustrate the extra difficulty of Government trading in this sphere, because one cannot be certain how a market will move. We quite rightly decided not to continue to hold trading stockpiles because we regarded it as much better for individual manufacturers and traders to hold the stocks themselves with their own money and to take their own view of whether the market was likely to go up or down.
Therefore, as the general policy of the Government is to run down our stocks of scarce materials, or what were at one time thought to be scarce materials, there would obviously be no case for reversing that policy in the particular instance of bismuth metal. The company to which my hon. Friend referred, namely, Messrs. Mining and Chemical Products Ltd. has put forward an ingenious scheme, which shows a proper sense of commercial opportunity in that if it were adopted it might seem to possess some advantage for the Government Department concerned, and it would certainly be one of considerable advantage to the company itself.
All that the company is really offering is a scheme whereby a material can be stockpiled, but with the aid of the working capital being supplied by the Government agency concerned. There is, after all, nothing at present to prevent Messrs. Mining and Chemical Products Ltd. from taking a view of the market


possibilities of bismuth and deciding on its own account to lay in stocks in advance of an expected rise in price and of demand.
The only point at issue is that the company would like to have a certain amount of Government money tied up in the transaction. We take the view that this is a matter for the commercial judgment of the individual companies concerned and that the Government, having experienced something of the difficulties of this type of trading in the past, are well advised to keep out of such transactions and to leave them properly to private enterprise.
I should, however, like to deal in rather more detail with the case of bismuth, because it was the example most quoted by my hon. Friend. I feel that it is necessary to outline something of the background which led to the proposal being put forward by Messrs. Mining and Chemical Products Ltd. For some time the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has been investigating the possibility of what are called liquid metal fuel reactor systems. In this connection, it was decided by the Authority that a small quantity of bismuth metal, about 20 tons, should be bought for use in the basic experiments. While the basic experiments were going on, the Authority naturally considered what might happen if the initial work on the liquid metal fuel reactor system were successful and an experimental reactor were built, and if the experimental reactor were successful and it was decided to go into large-scale production for a similar system.
Arising out of consideration of those matters, it was obviously necessary to consider whether there would be sufficient bismuth metal to supply the reactors, and, if that sequence of events were to occur, how much bismuth would be required. The firm which has been mentioned is, I understand, the main importer of bismuth into the United Kingdom. It was quite appropriate for the company to suggest, therefore, that a stock of bismuth should be built up on behalf of the Authority. As my hon. Friend has informed the House, it offered to buy it back again if it was not required. The Atomic Energy Authority reviewed the possible future for this

type of reactor and, as a result of that review, it informed the company that it had at present no requirement for bismuth other than for the small order which had already been placed.
Notwithstanding that, the company persisted in pressing its suggestion on the Authority, which has, quite rightly, adhered to its original decision not to go ahead. I ought to make it plain to my hon. Friend that the Authority does keep under review the world supply and demand of all metals in regard to which there is a possibility that there might be a future application in the sphere of atomic energy. That review of course includes bismuth itself.
The liquid metal fuel reactor systems are, however, still in an early stage of study—not even of development. There are many competing forms of reactor awaiting development, and it must remain unknown for some time whether that type will be chosen for large-scale production. From what I have said, I am sure the House will agree that there has to be a great deal more work done before any large-scale requirements for bismuth could possibly begin to emerge. Development of new ideas in atomic energy often raise at an early stage possible demands on a large scale for substances which are at present required in world markets only in very limited quantities. It is obvious that the Authority could not possibly undertake to stockpile all those materials against the possibility that one or more of them might eventually be required.
I will now deal in a little more detail with the proposal itself. It would not have involved the Authority in any ultimate expenditure if the bismuth had not been wanted. That was one of the interesting and ingenious features of the proposition. But, as I have said, it would nevertheless have involved the provision of working capital to a private firm in circumstances which would have enabled that firm to use public money for the building up of a stock of material which, under the very terms of the suggested arrangement, the firm would have been free to dispose of as it thought fit.

Mr. Russell: Only by agreement with the Atomic Energy Authority. What I gave was a broad outline of the plan.


The firm would obviously enter into arrangements to freeze the stock for the time being until it was sure whether the Atomic Energy Authority wanted it.

Mr. Erroll: I should have made that a little more clear. I meant that once the Authority had decided that it did not require the stock, the firm would have been free to dispose of the material in any way it thought fit. It might have made a large profit if prices had gone up, or indeed it might have sustained a substantial loss if the market was weak at the time of its determination to dispose of the stock.
Of course, once the Authority was no longer interested, it would want its money back, and the firm would have to sell the stock, possibly on a weak market, at a time when its commercial prudence would have dictated that it should have held on to it. I mention these points to show how difficult such a scheme would be in practice if the metal was not ultimately required. Obviously, in the absence of any firm requirement for the material, it was a proposal which was quite unacceptable.
I should mention one other matter, namely, that the Atomic Energy Authority, under the terms of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, is responsible for its own day-to-day affairs. It would obviously be wrong for Her Majesty's Government to interfere in the Authority's commercial arrangements except on a matter of considerable national importance. A decision by the Authority—and the Authority has made the decision—that it was not in its interests to buy a particular material was essentially a matter for the Authority itself. It would not be proper for any Government Department to seek to interfere with the Authority's own commercial judgment.
From what I have said I hope that the House will agree that the Government have acted rightly in this matter The proposition has been carefully examined by the Authority, which decided to turn it down. The Government see no reason why they should interfere with the Authority in what we regard as a proper exercise of its judgment.

HOUSING, STOKE-ON-TRENT

3.56 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I consider myself fortunate to have the opportunity of raising a matter of great importance, namely, housing construction in Stoke-on-Trent. Will the Minister allow me to thank him for his courtesy in coming to the House, and to assure him that my colleagues and myself, representing the three divisions in Stoke-on-Trent, appreciate very deeply his courtesy in coming here himself, whatever the reply he may give? We look upon it as evidence of the seriousness of the topic I am raising.
My colleagues and I have been deeply disturbed for some time about the effects of recent changes in Government policy, particularly of the high rate of interest which has prevailed in the open money market and the removal of the subsidy from housing except for slum clearance. I know that this applies to every authority, but Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire are in a worse plight than many other areas. It has been the policy of the Stoke-on-Trent local authority to build municipal houses as quickly and cheaply as possible and to let them at rents as low as possible, for a number of reasons which I will give briefly.
Other cities, like Coventry, have suffered very seriously from bombs and blast, but Stoke-on-Trent for a very long period has suffered from blight which has caused the steady corrosion of the houses by gross atmospheric pollution. This has brought about the rapid decay of the very fabric of our homes. The other reason is mining subsidence, which affects almost every dwelling in the city. Within the bounds of the city we have very poor land on which to build homes. The Minister knows that we are put to the expense of providing a concrete raft for each and every house that we build so that it shall be as stable as possible.
I would remind the Minister that our main industry, pottery, has never been very buoyant and has always been vulnerable. Wage rates have not been so high as in many other industries. We have known in the past, and unfortunately we know again today, unemployment and short-time working. Many thousands of


our workers are on short time. We have a high birthrate. Our children are our greatest asset, and we do our best to educate and care for them. We therefore regard the housing problem as of tremendous importance, and I am sure that the Minister agrees with that.
Even at the time of the last Census it was noted that 14 per cent, of the houses in the city had no piped water, 12 per cent. had no kitchen sink, 14 per cent. had no water closet and 59 per cent. had no fixed bath. When the war was over, an opportunity came to us to build again. The local authority seized its chance as best it could. Some of the figures of recent years are very heartening.
In 1951, we built for letting 1,201 houses; in 1952, 1,407; in 1953, 2,412; in 1954, 2,502; and in the last two years approximately 2,000 houses in each year. As the Minister will probably agree, this places us virtually at the top of the league in house construction, in that we were building, per thousand of the population, more houses than, perhaps, any other large local authority. We were doing very well in the speed of construction of our municipal houses, and our prices were low, perhaps lower than almost anywhere else in the country. Even today, the price of a two-bedroomed house is £1,600 and that of a three-bedroomed house is £1,750, including services and land.
As long as interest rates were reasonable and we could approach the Public Works Loan Board and obtain our money at, for example, 3 per cent., we could carry on this work with every expectation of continuing with it. Even so, the Minister will know that for a city that is not very well-to-do, we had to carry on the rates a substantial burden.
For example, to take the year ended 31st March, 1954, our total rate contribution was £92,000. At the end of that year, the total Capital expenditure on all schemes was £17 million, and out of that our net debt on all schemes was £15½ million at that time. We knew that, with redemption over sixty years at the rates of interest that ruled then, we must find 1s. 8½d. for every £100 that we owed. I am not a very good mathematician, but I have tried to work out what that means on the £.15½ million debt, and it is

approximately £690,000 for the year. In that year, the Government were able to assist us with a total subsidy of £255,000.
It is as a result of the two factors I have mentioned—the increase in the rate of interest, and the fact that we have been driven into the open market to borrow our money at 6 per cent., instead of receiving it as we used to do at 3 per cent.—and also because of the loss of the subsidy except for houses which are built following slum clearance, that we have had to cut our cloth to such an extent that we shall be without a coat or waistcoat. Our hopes have been and our plans were to get rid of all the slums in ten years.
We have 12,000 houses which we wished to abolish, and we considered that we would abolish 1,200 slum houses a year, and, for overcrowding and other purposes, we would build another 1,000 houses per year. That was our plan, but, in effect, after the most careful deliberation—and if ever the term "an agonising reappraisal" were true, it is in this case—the local authority have come to the conclusion that all it can build in the next year will be 800 houses, and these for slum clearance only. This means that we cannot build in the next year for other purposes.
The Minister will be interested to know that, even building about 800 houses and receiving the full subsidy, as we shall on each one, there will be a loss to the housing department of the city of £30,000 on that limited programme alone. He will also understand what a loss there would be if we built 1,200 houses for slum clearance and another 1,000 houses for other purposes. This £30,000 loss means that from 1st April, 1959, every tenant of every municipal house in the city, and I think that we have about 23,000 houses which are municipally owned, will have to pay an extra 6d. per week on the rent in order to cover this. That is for one year's building of 800 houses with the full subsidy. That, of course, is not the only increase in rent which we have had to face, nor will it be the only increase in the future, for increases must continue as long as interest rates are as high as at present.
The alternative for us has been stated by the Minister, namely, that we should increase the rents of the houses we have


already built. He has pointed out to us that our rents are very low compared with the rest of the country. They are lower than in the rest of the country for two reasons. One reason is that we built more cheaply and tried to pass on the benefit. The other reason is that we do not believe the majority of our tenants can pay appreciably higher rents without their families suffering. If we are to, go on building, therefore, we must either raise rents to everyone—and to build appreciably they must be raised steeply—or we must have some form of differential rents scheme, against which the housing committee in Stoke-on-Trent has set its face, for reasons which the Minister knows as well as I do.
There is a great variation of view in the country about that method of enabling citizens to bear each other's burdens. We are not anxious in Stoke-on-Trent to set up a new department which would have to go round asking people what they could pay and what are the circumstances in which they live. Nor did we think it good to separate neighbour from neighbour in that way. I must remind the Minister that excessive rents, if rents become excessive, may bring about ill-health and premature death from malnutrition. I do not have to quote the work of Dr. MCGonigal in Stockton-on-Tees. In addition, many people are living on housing estates and have travelling expenses which are not borne by many others who live near their work.
A three-bedroomed house in Stoke-on-Trent costs us at the moment £1,750. If there is no subsidy and if interest rates are 5½ per cent., we must let them at an economic rent of £2 4s. 5d. as against the present 17s. 11d. In the open market at the moment we are not paying 5½ per cent. but 6 per cent. Some of the loans we raised in the past were on low rates of interest. They must now be repaid and we must go into the market at much higher rates. That is a further burden on a poor city. The Minister will agree that at £1,750, if we are to borrow money at 6 per cent. instead of 3 per cent., that alone means virtually an extra 20s. a week on the rent, actually £51 a year extra. It is £53 at 3 per cent. and £104 at 6 per cent., and that takes no account of subsidy.
I gave notice to the Private Secretary to the Minister that I would say a word about brick production and, in the two or three minutes left to me, I shall do so.
His Parliamentary Secretary wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) earlier this month, stating that local stocks of bricks had risen but that the rise was not very high, and that for the Berry Hill Works it represented only two or three weeks' production. I will give the Minister the real facts. The total increase in stocks of bricks manufactured over the five months, October to February, inclusive, for Region No. 9 of the Midlands area was 30½ million. Secondly, the Berry Hill Works in March had three and a half weeks' production in stock; the Clanway Works had four weeks' production in stock and the New Haden Works, ten weeks' production in stock. Production this year by these works has been cut by 130,000 bricks per week over the past thirteen weeks, which is a very substantial reduction. Another point is that two works have closed down altogether.
This has meant that our housing programme has been crippled and that we are suffering unemployment and short-time working not only in the brick-making but in the building industry. We are deeply disturbed, and I am therefore happy to have had this opportunity to tell the Minister that we should like him to use all his influence with his Cabinet colleagues to see that authorities like Stoke-on-Trent should be able, as soon as possible, to borrow their money for purposes such as these not at 5½ per cent. or 6 per cent. but at the former 3 per cent.

4.12 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): It is entirely right that an opportunity should be taken upon an Adjournment day such as this to discuss the housing problems of a great city. I very much appreciate what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) said about my presence here. I regard the housing problems of every great city, including Stoke, as among my major responsibilities, and I do not think that he or any of my political opponents have ever charged me with being callous or hard-hearted towards the human side of these extremely serious problems.
The position that he has put to me—and I have no quarrel with his figures about the course of house-building in Stoke—is that the Stoke City Council, on account of the combination of high interest rates and the ending of the general needs subsidy, is no longer able to carry on with house building at anything like its previous rate of about 2,000 houses a year. I recognise that the run-down has already started. According to figures that I have, on 31st March, 1956, the council had 1,700 houses under construction and a further 1,200 in tenders which had been approved, although the work had not yet started. The present figures are very different. On 31st March, 1957, the number under construction had fallen to 900—that is a further fall since the figure of 1,300 which I gave recently in the House, in respect of the position at 31st December, 1956—and at the end of March, 1957, the number in tenders approved but not yet started had fallen to 100.
I understand from the hon. Member, and from what I have read, that the Stoke City Council believes that it cannot now afford to build at a rate of more than about 800 houses a year, using the slum clearance subsidy for those 800 but not extending its building beyond those which will qualify for this slum clearance subsidy. That is the position he has put to me, and he is arguing that it is so grave that special action, either for Stoke alone or for other cities in a similar situation, ought to be taken to rectify it.
So far as I know, the full achievement of the council in house building over the years is that altogether it owns about 23,000 houses, of which about 8,600 are pre-1939, and the remainder post-war. He said, rightly, that the council has always pursued a policy of charging low rents. He argued that that had been possible through its managing to build cheaply, and because it felt that on social grounds it was wise to do so. I do not think, therefore, that he will raise objection to my bringing it to the attention of the House that the rents of council houses in Stoke are now distinctly lower than the average in similar cities.
According to my information, the average exclusive rent for a three-bedroom council house in Stoke is about

12s. 9d. a week. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the average council rent for a similar house in other big cities, and in towns generally, is quite materially higher than that.

Dr. Stross: When the right hon. Gentleman says 12s. 9d. a week, does he mean the average for all the 23,000 houses? I may say that today the rent is 17s. 5d. a week, plus water, plus rates —which is about 27s. a week for those houses that were built last year and which we are building this year.

Mr. Brooke: I was speaking of the average. It is quite possible for a council to pursue a policy of fixing the rent for each house according to the actual cost of building it. Successive Ministers, not only of my party, have deprecated that policy, because it seems rather unfair that a tenant should pay rent according to the chance of when his house was built. The house may be no better or worse than another council house, yet, under that policy, if it happened to have been built in a cheap or in an expensive period of building, the rent charged will differ widely.
The policy which is much more extensively pursued nowadays by councils of all political colours—and I can say that advisedly—is to pool rents in such a way as to iron out differences which arise solely from the level of building costs at the time the house was built. Nowadays, the general attitude of local housing authorities is rather to assess the quality and the amenities as well as the size of each of its council houses, and to seek to fix a rent which will reflect that; in other words, the true value of the house to the tenant, rather than the actual financial cost of building it. Indeed, that is a policy which is commonly pursued in all matters of price fixing, and not only in housing matters.
The hon. Gentleman urges that though rents might be raised a little above the average of 12s. 9d., there is very little scope, and he and the council believe, I am sure with all sincerity, that if they go on building at the present interest rates and without subsidy, they will need either to fix the rents of their new houses at very high figures, or else to subsidise them profusely, as it were, out of the rates.
The last thing I want to do today is to exacerbate any differences. There is


a difference of approach. I would much rather find a way through this without any quarrelling at all. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I are not quarrelling today.

Dr. Stross: Dr. Stross indicated assent.

Mr. Brooke: I am anxious for Stoke to go on with its building. I should like to see it building at a greater rate than 800 houses a year. But I must ask the hon. Gentleman, and through him the Stoke City Council, to consider whether it would be right for me or for any Minister in any Government to impose an additional charge on the taxpayers as a whole in order to enable those councils which wish to charge low rents to be able to continue to do so.
As I say, the average level of rents in Stoke is materially lower—not just fractionally lower—than the average for the big towns and the other towns generally. The hon. Member argued that this would naturally be so, because wages in Stoke were not very high and the pottery industry has not been having altogether easy times. I know that the pottery industry is not a high wage industry. He and I, however, when we are studying a question like this, have both to look at the facts and figures which are available.
According to the official figures as at October, 1956, the average earnings in the pottery industry were £11 4s. a week. That is for a man over 21. I know that that does not mean to say that everybody was earning that amount, but nevertheless, there is a surprisingly wide gap between average male adult earnings of £11 4s. a week and an average exclusive rent of 12s. 9d. for a three-bedroom family council house.
I know, too, that the pottery industry is not the only industry which affects Stoke. There must be many miners living in council houses in Stoke. I quoted the figure of £11 4s. for average earnings in the pottery industry. The average earnings for mining at the same date were £15 6s. On these counts I must put it to him that the Stoke City Council is pursuing a policy of what appear to me to be surprisingly low rents.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of a differential rent scheme. He told the House that the council would have set its face against anything of that kind, because it did not wish to set up

additional management staff to administer a scheme like that, and in principle it thought that it was not good to separate neighbour from neighbour.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that those arguments cannot be sustained merely on party grounds. I, as a London Member, am only too well aware that the first differential rent scheme in London—the first since the war, certainly—was established by a Metropolitan borough council which for years and years has been under Socialist control and which, for its part, did not think the objections were insuperable.
On the contrary, that council and many other councils under the control of both parties, which have adopted such schemes, have come to the conclusion that that is the fairest way of fixing council rents, because by charging more to those who are found to be able to afford more and not to need the subsidy, the local authority is thereby provided with funds wherewith it can subsidise the more those tenants who, because of unemployment or short-time or family misfortune or any other reason, really do need to be housed at low rents if the children or the other members of the household are not to suffer through rent taking up too large a proportion of their incomes.
I realise that the Stoke City Council holds firm, indeed, dogmatic views on these rent questions. I know that at one time it was approached by the National Coal Board to inquire whether it would build houses for miners. There would have been the opportunity to have a subsidy of no less than £24 per house per annum, with a further £8 for some years from the Coal Board, making £32 altogether. Even with all that financial assistance offered, the council refused to go on, because, I think, it believed that even in those circumstances a slight addition might have to be made to the rents of its pre-war houses.

Dr. Stross: The Minister must not do the council an injustice. Its real reason was that it knew it could build more quickly for the miners if it built in its own way, and more cheaply. Also, the council did not want the miners lumped together in what was called a "ghetto", but interspersed with the rest of the population.

Mr. Brooke: I certainly accept what the hon. Member says about that. I am sure that he will not resent my having referred to the case, because it certainly seemed that the council was adopting a somewhat negative attitude even when there were substantial subsidies available to it.
On the face of things, the Stoke City Council appears to be in a better position than many other authorities to continue building and to combine building for slum clearance purposes with building for general needs. It appears to have something in hand, because it would apparently be possible either by adopting a differential rent scheme or by carrying further the policy which I described, of pooling the rents of the newer and older houses, to gain a substantial further income from rents without hardship to any of its tenants. The council thereby would be enabled to continue to build and yet avoid placing a burden on the rates.
The hon. Gentleman has stated his case frankly and bluntly and, at the same time, most courteously. I have sought to reply in the same spirit. From outside, certainly from my position, it seems that the attitude of the Stoke City Council may be in danger of amounting to saying that it would rather not provide a house for somebody who needs one than charge a reasonable rent to somebody who could afford to pay more than he is at present paying. That is the difference between us. I cannot, I am afraid, hold out any hope to the hon. Gentleman or to the Stoke City Council that there will be a change in the subsidy policy of the Government. Neither he nor I can foresee the future of interest rates.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman will pass on sympathetically, in the spirit in which we have been debating the matter, what I have said today. I should be sorry indeed if anything I said were to exacerbate relations or lessen the chance of Stoke City Council meeting the needs of those of its citizens, who, I know require further housing.

SPEED LIMIT, KINGSTEIGNTON

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) has already spoken to the Motion which is before the House, but if he asks the leave of the House, I do not think that any hon. Member present will refuse him that leave.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I beg to ask leave to speak again. The matter which I wish to raise is a problem of long standing. In September, 1954, the Kingsteignton Parish Council, in my constituency, asked the Devon County Council to reintroduce a 30 m.p.h. speed limit on the road from Kingsteignton to Newton Abbot. In December of that year, the county council replied to the effect that, as the police agreed, an order for extending the speed limit from the bus garage to the Pottery Cottages would be made and, naturally, submitted to the Ministry of Transport for confirmation. From that moment, while correspondence passed between the two councils, nothing concrete appeared to happen.
On 10th July, 1956, I wrote to the then Parliamentary Secretary, my right hon. Friend who is now Minister of Works, and on 1st October I received a reply. It was a very full one, and it agreed to extend the speed limit by 200 yards. While this was certainly a move in the right direction, I was not completely satisfied, neither was the parish council who had originally raised the question. I therefore wrote again and received a reply from my hon. Friend the present Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who gave a number of accident statistics, but not the answer I wanted namely, the full length covered by the county council order.
The road to which I refer is part of route A.380 between Kingsteignton and Newton Abbot. It carries all traffic between Exeter and the Torbay area. Naturally, during the season, it carries very heavy tourist traffic. At the moment, the road is restricted from the northern outskirts of Kingsteignton to a point just beyond a Y-junction. The road is again restricted at traffic lights on the outskirts of Newton Abbot where Torbay traffic is diverted to the left to miss the centre of the town. Between these two points is about 1,200 yards of de-restricted road,


which is the part with which I am concerned. The extra 200 yards in respect of which the Minister agreed would cover the entrance of a recent development—St. Michael's Road—and also the caravan site which is opposite, but it would still leave out the Pottery Cottages.
I agree with my hon. Friend when he states in his letters to me that there is a footpath on one side or the other of this length of road, but on the number of occasions when I have walked the length of road I have found that the pavement ends on the west side and begins on the east side at a point where, unfortunately, visibility is most restricted.
My hon. Friend is probably acting upon advice when he suggests to me that the road is practically straight, but I can say from experience that, in crossing the road where the pavement terminates to the other side of the road where it begins again, one's ears are certainly as essential as one's eyes. The row of terraced houses which we know locally as the Pottery Cottages are on the west side of the road opposite the Pottery Works. In my opinion, they are in a very unfortunate position.
The residents who wish to catch a bus to Newton Abbot must cross the road, and, as there is no footpath on the east side at that point, they have to stand in the road against the pottery boundary wall where they are an easy target for any vehicle which comes round the bend hugging the Pottery boundary wall. Children from those cottages must cross the road on their way to school if they are either to walk on the pavement all the way or are to face the oncoming traffic, which, naturally, we are told we ought to do when not walking on the pavement. Similarly, all the mothers with their prams who go to Newton Abbot to shop must cross the road at least once if they are to use the pavement. If they do not they take grave risks.
I agree that beyond the Pottery Cottages there is no justification for a speed limit. The road is in no sense built up beyond the Pottery Cottages. Moreover, as the police always regulate the traffic on days when Newton Abbot races take place, one realises that there is no need to restrict the traffic beyond that point, but I do feel that the occupants of Pottery Cottages deserve more

consideration than has been shown to them up to now.
I understand that the parish council is hoping to get a bus bay on the site, which would certainly ease the position, because it would save people from having to stand in the road while waiting for a bus; but that is another matter. I do ask my hon. Friend, in the light of the facts I have put to him, to consider his decision.

4.36 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) on securing part of the Adjournment—I was going to say at the eleventh hour, but it is not quite that—at the last hour in which he could raise this matter before the Easter Recess, and upon using his opportunity so profitably to express the grievances and complaints of his constituents in Kingsteignton.
This stretch of road, as he rightly says, has been a source of trouble for some little time. It is one of those problem areas. It stretches from the limit of the 30 m.p.h. restriction in Kingsteignton— from the bus garage my hon. Friend mentioned just a short distance south of, the road junction where the road bifurcates to Exeter and Teignmouth—to the northern limits of Newton Abbot, where the 30 m.p.h. limit comes on again.
It is true that Devon County Council, which is the highway authority, supported by the police, has applied for this extension southwards from the bus garage to a point 619 yards southward of that point, to cover both the Newton Abbot Potteries and Pottery Cottages. My predecessor, the Minister of Works, agreed, as my hon. Friend has said, in a letter in October of last year to an extension of the speed limit to a point 200 yards south from the bus garage. This, as my hon. Friend has said, covers the recent development in Kingsteignton village, including the entrance to the caravan sites. Extension beyond this point was refused because of the relatively open nature of the road. It is not a matter of the road's being straight or bending slightly. It is a case of its relatively open nature.
My hon. Friend and, indeed, through him, the Kingsteignton Parish Council, is


now asking me to reverse this decision to extend the 30 m.p.h. limit to the point asked for by the Devon County Council.
He referred to the accident record of this road in the past six years. It amounts to fifteen. We have carefully analysed those accidents and have found that speed was a factor in six out of the fifteen. Every accident, of course, is serious, but I must make the point to my hon. Friend that, despite the seriousness of this record, five accidents in two years on average is not high, unfortunately, for this class of road.
I should like to say a few words about our general policy on 30 m.p.h. limits. It has been the policy of my Ministry for some years to allow the establishment of the 30 m.p.h. limit only in areas which are genuinely built-up areas with a view to restricting it to stretches of roads where the majority of motorists will voluntarily comply. Research has shown that the introduction of speed limits on roads which are not really built up does not reduce the average speed of vehicles. It leads only, despite assiduous enforcement, to a general breach of the regulations.
When they see an open stretch of road, motorists naturally tend to drive a little faster, though not necessarily dangerously. On stretches of road like that, however effective the enforcement, it is not possible to stop traffic travelling fast. If 30 m.p.h. limits are established in non-built-up areas, the effectiveness of the restriction is weakened everywhere by drivers increasingly ignoring the limit. That in turn would have repercussions on the observance of 30 m.p.h. limits in truly built-up areas, to the detriment of pedestrians and of road safety throughout the country. Consequently, our general policy over the years has been firm against 30 m.p.h. limits in non-built-up areas.
This stretch of road south of Kingsteignton to the outskirts of Newton Abbot is not really built up, and in the main gives the impression of a fairly open road. It is just the kind of road that we want to avoid restricting, because of the probability that the majority of drivers would ignore the restriction, in which case, far from increasing the safety of pedestrians, it would give them an unwarranted sense of security, because motorists would continue to drive at the same speed, and at the same time it would weaken the general effectiveness of this road safety device.
I well understand the desire of the people of Kingsteington, especially the residents of Pottery Cottages, for increased road safety and the reduction of accidents there, and I sympathise with their natural anxiety about their children. I am anxious to do anything possible to reduce the dangers of this road. I am also anxious that my hon. Friend and local residents should understand that the establishment of a 30 m.p.h. limit will not necessarily do that. We are not persuaded that in this case it would do so.
My hon. Friend has referred to certain road improvements that might help. The construction of a waiting bay for the bus has been suggested. That would certainly help. Then there is the extension of the pavement on the opposite side of the road to the cottages. That would also help. These, of course, will be works for the highway authority, the Devon County Council, to do on this Class I road and, other things being equal, we should give a grant of 75 per cent. towards the work. Possibly, central islands might be considered, but I am rather doubtful whether the road is wide enough for them. The long-term solution here is that there should be dual carriageways. That is in the development plan. In that event, pedestrians crossing the road would only have to look one way as they crossed each section but that, I am afraid, is not likely to happen for some years.
But I have listened to my hon. Friend's plea and have given due weight to it, and indeed to the feeling of the local people, taking into account that our decision not to extend the 30 m.p.h. limit is contrary to the view of the county highway authority, the Devon County Council. In the circumstances, the best solution is to order a public inquiry on the spot. That I am prepared to do without delay and we will study the problem afresh in the light of the report upon it. The various points which I have mentioned about a waiting bay, extension of the pavement, etc., can be examined at the same time. I am anxious to do everything we can to find the best solution here, and one which will carry public confidence in the neighbourhood.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Five o'clock, till Tuesday, 30th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.